On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > 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: >>> >>> 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). reading between the lines of the fine documentation, there is no mention of X11 or GUI applications, so i guess "arbitrary" is a bit of an exaggeration? http://sandbox.libvirt.org/quickstart/ http://sandbox.libvirt.org/faq/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
