On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:56:33AM -0500, David wrote: > It looks or appears to me that many if not all packages in Rawhide are > slightly > more recent versions that the ones available via flatpak. I know some > flatpaks > also offer a choice of a nightly version. > > I was just wondering or pondering, which packages Rawhiders, > prefer to run as a flatpak or vice-versa. It's up to your preference. In some cases you might want both. > Would Rawhide be more stable to run all available packages in flatpak > ? > Or is that too cumbersome ? Or does that defeat the > purpose of testing packages ? It would yes. You would be testing flatpak's and their platforms instead. Which isn't completely a bad thing, just different. > I used flatpaks for over a year, but I am not yet a flatpak-lover, or > flatpak-fanboy > or whatever they call themselves. I do not really have a need for the > extra-security > of a sandboxed program. The number one thing about flatpaks that I > like, is that they > are so easy to delete, so I like to install a flatpak of a program that I > am not familiar > with. Well, rpms should be easy to remove as well. flatpaks are handy if you are running silverblue, they are also sometimes nice because the stack some application uses in rawhide is broken somwhere, and you can just use the flatpak until it's fixed. The sandboxing is a nice bonus. Just my 2c. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-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/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
