On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:47 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:43 AM Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 9:26 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Filtered_Flathub_Applications
>>
>> == Summary ==
>> Enabling third-party repositories will now create a Flathub remote
>> that is a filtered view of Flathub.
>>
>>
>> == Detailed Description ==
>> '''''Note that this proposal is about user experience, procedures, and
>> technology - the high-level concept has already been discussed and
>> approved by the Fedora Council and FESCO.'''''
>>
>> Enabling third-party repositories will now create a Flathub remote
>> that is a filtered view of Flathub. This means that applications on
>> Flathub that have been explicitly approved (by a new process proposed
>> here) will be available in GNOME Software and on the
>> <code>flatpak</code> command line. If the user follows following the
>> instructions on https://flatpak.org/setup/Fedora/, then the filter is
>> removed, and the user gets a full view of Flathub.
>>
>> Roughly speaking, the criteria for including software is a) will not
>> cause legal or other problems for Fedora to point to b) does not
>> overlap Fedora Flatpaks or software in Fedora that could easily be
>> made into a Flatpak c) works reasonably well. For Fedora 35, We expect
>> to include all software from the top 50 most popular applications on
>> Flathub that meet these criteria plus selected other software of
>> interest to the Fedora target audience - Fedora community members are
>> welcome to propose additions.
>
>
> Does this mean that FESCO is now forcing Fedora packagers to maintain Fedora Flatpaks and respond to their related issues when many of them seem to be created without the packagers' knowledge/consent, and there is no documentation in the packaging guidelines/wiki about how to actually do anything for them, or information about where the manifests for them actually live?
>
Of course not. This is a criteria for what we permit through the
filter from Flathub. The idea is that nothing we offer from Flathub
should be possible to ship in Fedora itself. That is, it's truly only
possible to be available as a third-party app.
Basically, if something is available in Fedora, it *cannot* be
available through Flathub by default.
But that is exactly why it seems to me packagers are being forced to care about the Fedora Flatpaks. Take the Audacity package as an example (since I am one of the people maintaining it). There is a usable Flatpak for it on Flathub, and I as a packager don't want to need to learn the Fedora systems to build and maintain a Fedora Flatpak for it (since there seems to be little to no documentation on how to do it). According to this policy - since there is an Audacity package in Fedora, the Flathub version couldn't be included. If we don't have a maintained version of the Flatpak in Fedora, then why are we blocking it from Flathub?
-Ian
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
