On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +0000, Debarshi Ray 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. Things like libvirt-sandbox have been around for a really long time and don't require special packaging (in fact they work with any arbitrary command). Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests. http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
