On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 00:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.
> > at>
> > 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 actually don't expect to have many conditionals for Flatpak support
in the spec file. There may need to be fixes - for example, if %files
references /usr/share rather than %{_datadir} - but those fixes should
just work for the main build as well. If Fedora packages just hardcoded
FHS paths, then all the path macros wouldn't be necessary to start
with!
An example of where conditionals may be useful is when a library is
bundled into a Flatpak - the rebuild for the flatpak could skip
building the developer docs because they have complicated build
dependencies (graphviz or whatever.) We'll have to see how frequent
that is as we work through real examples.
Owen
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
