On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 03:20:34PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > And for flatpak, using /app rather than /opt is actually an important > decision, because we often need to export the real host filesystem to > an app, and if the app is in /opt then exposing the host /opt to the > application becomes very tricky. Can you give an example of an app which would want to access the host /opt in that way? I don't see packaging regular RPMs with /app as a prefix as a likely option in Fedora, although I guess we *could* discuss that. I *do*, see a high value in having our packages share a common build configuration. For many programs, PREFIX at build time leads to many runtime assumptions, and we can't just shuffle prebuilt binaries things to assemble a container with a different structure. I'm not set in concrete on this idea, but do you have any alternate suggestions for how this could work? I would like to avoid 1. Forking specfiles and doing everything twice 2. Adding complicated macros to specfiles for different prefixes (history has shown this to not work well) 3. Counting on a shuffle-the-built-bits tool of some sort (this seems fragile and I'm not sure we have anyone committed to doing it) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
