On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Debarshi Ray <rishi.is@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, 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. > > Huh? How would you get sandboxing without Flatpaks? Unless you are > proposing a different sandboxing technology. As above, it could be the exact same sandbox technology with the same portals and everything. The sandboxed program would just be files in /usr instead of a Flatpak. --Andy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
