On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 10:44, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of > > their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM > > packaging. > > At least we see where this is going. > > If RPMs of the graphical application work fine now, what on earth is > the point of forcing packagers to make Flatpaks? Sandboxing isn't one > of them - as already explained, sandboxing is orthogonal to packaging. Is `dnf install foo' still going to work when foo is converted to a Flatpak and no longer built as a plain RPM? In my opinion, that's a prerequisite to dropping any RPMs in favour of Flatpaks. I'm fine with introducing Flatpaks alongside RPMs as an option, but I'm against forcing packagers to switch to Flatpaks as the primary distribution format if the existing package management tools do not support it. >From what I read, only GNOME Software app supports Flatpaks and not everyone uses GNOME Software to install software. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
