On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 00:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > = System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Graphical_Applications_as_Fl > > atpaks > > > > Change owner(s): > > * Owen Taylor <otaylor@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This change is leaving several questions unanswered: > > * As I understand it, those Flatpaks are going to be built from RPMs. > Is the > intent to ship both the original RPMs and the Flatpak or only the > Flatpak > (or is this going to depend on the individual package)? And if the > former, > are the shipped RPMs going to be the FHS-compliant version or the > one > relocated into Flatpak's proprietary prefix? I can image Flatpak applications that are not available in Fedora as RPMs (or as a RPM in COPR, etc.) that use Fedora RPMs for their dependencies, possibly bundling the few missing dependencies on top. > > * What is the advantage of shipping Fedora distribution packages to > Fedora > users as Flatpaks? I see only drawbacks compared to RPM, because > everything > not included in the base runtime must be bundled, so we have all the > usual > issues of bundled libraries: larger downloads, more disk consumption, > more > RAM consumption (shared system libraries are also shared in RAM), > slower and > less efficient delivery of security fixes, FHS noncompliance, etc. I see quite a few: - thanks to how runtimes work it should be possibly to install Flatpack applications to older/newer Fedora releases than the one where the application originates from - easy to use development versions without breaking the RPM installed version of an application - I guess it should be possibly to install multiple version of an application in parallel (for testing, etc.) - better sandboxing than RPM installed apps, possibly improving security > And the > portability argument is moot when we are talking about delivering > Fedora > software to Fedora users. I would still expect the resulting Flatpacks to work even on let's say Ubuntu given how (AFAIK) the Flatpak runtimes work. So I don't think this argument is moot. > > I strongly oppose this change. As I understand the change this is just an additional mechanism for graphical application delivery - no one is taking away the normal RPM based mechanism. So I don't think it makes sense to oppose an effort that is just providing an additional mechanism to what we already have now. > > Kevin Kofler > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
