On Wed Jan 11, 2023 at 10:56 AM EST, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> No. There are no Fedora Flatpaks on Flathub, and there are no filters
> to prevent users from installing Fedora Flatpaks.
Oh ok; I have no objection then. Apologies for the confusion.
Cheers,
--
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs
PS:
On Wed, Jan 11 2023 at 05:19:03 PM +0100, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
Thanks Michael, what a headache.
So for RPM Fusion to be included, it would have to change its
scope/definition and host a more "varied" suit of packages?
Well I can't be certain what Fedora Legal will or won't accept, but
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:26 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> One thing I don't see addressed here is how this would impact the release
> criteria. Would it? If so, now's the time to start coordinating with the QA
> team to make those changes.
>
I think we're mostly concerned with the default experience,
One thing I don't see addressed here is how this would impact the release
criteria. Would it? If so, now's the time to start coordinating with the QA
team to make those changes.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
Once upon a time, Alexander Ploumistos said:
> Thanks Michael, what a headache.
> So for RPM Fusion to be included, it would have to change its
> scope/definition and host a more "varied" suit of packages?
Probably, but there's no reason for RPM Fusion to expand the scope
beyond "things that
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:47 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11 2023 at 02:44:01 AM +0100, Alexander Ploumistos
> wrote:
> > Flathub carries programs like VLC, mpv, yt-dlp, bundled versions of
> > ffmpeg and so on. Why is it ok now to get these from flathub, but not
> > from RPM
On Wed, Jan 11 2023 at 03:47:41 PM +, DJ Chase
wrote:
True, but it was my understanding that “our Flathub offering” in
“This
change would remove the filtering from our Flathub offering” refers
to
Fedora Flatpaks, which is enabled by default, not the filtered view of
Flathub that can be
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:47 AM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11 2023 at 02:44:01 AM +0100, Alexander Ploumistos
> wrote:
> > Flathub carries programs like VLC, mpv, yt-dlp, bundled versions of
> > ffmpeg and so on. Why is it ok now to get these from flathub, but not
> > from RPM
On Wed Jan 11, 2023 at 10:18 AM EST, Ben Cotton wrote:
> The first two sentences of the proposal summary are "Fedora
> Workstation's existing third party repo feature allows users to enable
> a selection of software repos that are hosted by external
> organizations. This selection has included a
On Wed, Jan 11 2023 at 02:44:01 AM +0100, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
Flathub carries programs like VLC, mpv, yt-dlp, bundled versions of
ffmpeg and so on. Why is it ok now to get these from flathub, but not
from RPM Fusion?
Hi, it's because RPM Fusion is explicitly designed to provide extra
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:09 AM DJ Chase wrote:
>
> Then in that sense, aren’t we already shipping unfiltered Flathub? IIRC
> you can already enable Flathub in GNOME Software.
The first two sentences of the proposal summary are "Fedora
Workstation's existing third party repo feature allows
On Wed Jan 11, 2023 at 9:33 AM EST, Kamil Paral wrote:
> It's not out of the box. You have to *opt-in* to third-party repos (which
> already contain Steam, Nvidia binary driver, etc).
Then in that sense, aren’t we already shipping unfiltered Flathub? IIRC
you can already enable Flathub in GNOME
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:37 PM DJ Chase wrote:
> Providing nonfree packages out of the box ultimately promotes the use of
> that nonfree software, which violates this foundation.
>
It's not out of the box. You have to *opt-in* to third-party repos (which
already contain Steam, Nvidia binary
I am wholely against this.
One of the primary reasons I use Fedora is because it only ships free
software repos by default. Indeed, the first of the Four Foundations is
Freedom, which explicitly lists these as part of the foundation:
• “innovation in free and open source software that can
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:22 PM Neal Becker wrote:
> The one concern I have with this proposal is it says that flatpak version
> would only be offered if it didn't duplicate a package in fedora.
>
Citation needed. Do you mean this sentence?
> Where there are overlaps, Fedora content will be
On 11/01/2023 13:20, Neal Becker wrote:
The potential problem I see is this depends on Fedora and Flathub being
totally consistent in their naming.
Both RPM and Flatpak use the reverse domain ID from the
upstream-provided metainfo file.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:22 AM Neal Becker wrote:
>
> The one concern I have with this proposal is it says that flatpak version
> would only be offered if it didn't duplicate a package in fedora. The
> potential problem I see is this depends on Fedora and Flathub being totally
> consistent
The one concern I have with this proposal is it says that flatpak version
would only be offered if it didn't duplicate a package in fedora. The
potential problem I see is this depends on Fedora and Flathub being totally
consistent in their naming.
___
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 7:50 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> # Adjust GNOME Software so that it uses the following priority order
> when deciding which package to offer by default:
> ## Fedora Flatpaks
> ## RPMs
> ## Flathub Flatpaks
>
Thanks for this. That was my concern last time. With my QA hat on, I
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:44 AM Alexander Ploumistos <
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Flathub carries programs like VLC, mpv, yt-dlp, bundled versions of
> ffmpeg and so on. Why is it ok now to get these from flathub, but not
> from RPM Fusion?
>
I guess the difference could be between a
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:59 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11 2023 at 01:33:18 AM +0100, Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
> > Also, given that it is now apparently considered "allowed" to enable
> > unfiltered flathub with the "Enable third-party repositories" switch,
> > I wonder if that
On Wed, Jan 11 2023 at 01:33:18 AM +0100, Fabio Valentini
wrote:
Also, given that it is now apparently considered "allowed" to enable
unfiltered flathub with the "Enable third-party repositories" switch,
I wonder if that reasoning also applies to the equivalent situation
for RPMFusion repos?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 7:34 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnfilteredFlathub
>
> Note that I am processing this proposal past the deadline because 1. I
> think it could reasonably be considered a Self-Contained Change
> proposal and 2. the reasons outlined by
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 4:58 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 10/01/2023 19:33, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > In the graphical software manager app, Flathub
> > packages will only be selected by default when no Fedora package is
> > available.
>
> Thanks for implementing that. Looks good for me
On 10/01/2023 19:33, Ben Cotton wrote:
In the graphical software manager app, Flathub
packages will only be selected by default when no Fedora package is
available.
Thanks for implementing that. Looks good for me now.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnfilteredFlathub
Note that I am processing this proposal past the deadline because 1. I
think it could reasonably be considered a Self-Contained Change
proposal and 2. the reasons outlined by Mattias in another thread:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnfilteredFlathub
Note that I am processing this proposal past the deadline because 1. I
think it could reasonably be considered a Self-Contained Change
proposal and 2. the reasons outlined by Mattias in another thread:
27 matches
Mail list logo
