On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >> Does anyone in marketing or development now what the article is >> referring >> to and what's going on? > > Hi, > > There's an article on Ars as well. The "working with Fedora developers" > claim is probably a misunderstanding on Softpedia's part; it's not > true, and I doubt Canonical would have said that. What's going on is > that Canonical beat us to market in development... and now their > marketing folks have beat us in marketing, too. We of course have zero > plans to adopt Snappy in Fedora, and in fact multiple Fedora developers > are working on a competing solution, Flatpak [1] (formerly xdg-app), > which is also being adopted by GNOME and Endless. Until today, Snappy > was viewed as Ubuntu-specific, which is why there was so little > interest in it. "...interest in it within Fedora." is probably what you meant? > We have not considered, and need to discuss, whether to allow that > snapcore package into Fedora proper; there's a strong argument to be > made that we should accept all free software, but doing that could > undercut our Flatpak effort. If popular upstreams start distributing > snaps, then we'll probably have to support it, though. I'm sorry, but undercutting a competing effort isn't a disqualifier for packaging within Fedora. That would be like saying KDE undercuts GNOME or emacs undercuts vi, etc. Software should compete on it's technical merits and generally be available within the Fedora packaging repositories as long as its license and packaging is acceptable. > Challenge for the marketing folks: can we get these tech journalism > sites writing about Flatpak instead? About GNOME Software's new support > for displaying and installing Flatpaks in F24? Otherwise, I see > upstreams adopting Snappy and not Flatpak. That's certainly something worth doing. > Background info: In the Workstation working group, we're currently > planning to allow replacing RPM packages for graphical apps with > Flatpaks. We're also planning to remove Fedora packages for selected > apps that are offered as Flatpaks by upstream. For instance, if > (hypothetical) Inkscape were to offer a Flatpak download on their web > site, the Inkscape developers could request that we remove the Inkscape > Fedora package and display their Flatpak in GNOME Software instead; the > goal here is to reduce friction between upstream and downstream that > people complain about so often, while ensuring it's still very easy to > find and install software that runs reliably on Fedora. I guess we How do you plan on addressing the problem reporting issue? In your example, the Inkscape package will still exist in RPM form for other Editions. That means there are potentially two versions of Inkscape, one from upstream and one packaged in Fedora. How do you ensure problem reports are routed to the correct issue tracker? Even ignoring a potential overlap with upstream Flatpak vs. RPM, the problem reporting issue exists. If GNOME Software is offering up upstream flatpaks directly, I'm concerned it is going to lead to confusion for users when they have issues. josh -- Fedora Marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
