On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 00:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > The problem is that the RPMs that go into the Flatpaks are not FHS- > > compliant, so the RPMs will have to carry some conditionals and be built > > twice. > > Yes, that is true. Some apps will have to be patched for Flatpak, and > building them as both RPMs and Flatpaks is going to require conditionals. So > there will be some overhead if we support both. I think this is unacceptable and a blocker. It didn't work with SCLs and it won't work with Flatpak, either. Flatpaks must be possible to build from unmodified RPMs or as part of RPM build process. > I think that's probably worthwhile. The way I see it, we have a large number > of users who prefer an entirely RPM-based system, although most users would > be better off with an Atomic system and just layering a few RPMs on top. Could you explain the benefits of Atomic system + few layered RPMs vs. a traditional Fedora installation? > I suspect we can satisfy both groups of users while doing only a minimal > amount of work. Making patches conditional is not so hard. By the way, I can't figure out how to look inside a Flatpak and review its contents. Could someone provide some pointers? With plain RPMs or yum repos I can just download the binary RPM and extract it (rpm2cpio foo.rpm|cpio -div). I can also examine metadata using rpm -qp -i -R --provides and so on. What is the equivalent for Flatpak? 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
