On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > I strongly dispute the idea that Fedora must be tied to a particular > > packaging technology. > > The particular packaging technology is what ensures that we have a coherent, > integrated system. Flatpaks by design cannot offer the kind of integration > that native packages can offer, neither in terms of using shared system > libraries (saving space), nor in terms of user experience (even with > "portals", there will always be kinds of interoperation that the sandbox > just cannot allow). > > And if the users will get their packages in a generic format rather than a > native Fedora format, what advantage do they get from getting it from Fedora > to begin with? The point of delivering Fedora packages is to integrate them > into the distribution. Only native packages can provide that. Exactly, upstreams might as well just deliver .zip files which unpack into a single directory and provide a ./application.sh script to set up the LD_LIBRARY_PATH and cgroups right. That's basically what we're talking about here when you strip it back to the essentials. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
