On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason I chimed > > in on this thread initially, is with the idea that these new > containerized > > packaging systems are in some way *superior* to traditional packaging. Or > > at least that's what I read between the lines of the proposal to allow > > upstreams to ask for their flatpaks or whatever to be shipped in place of > > RPMs. > > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place, > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak. > > Well, assuming that turns out to be the case, should our packaging guidelines eventually become "do not make RPM packages of end-user applications but instead make a downstream flatpak package"? I'd probably have mixed feelings about this, too, and it's not what the Workstation proposal suggests at the moment, either, but it seems to be where we're eventually leading here. Or, we could have tooling to turn a RPM into a flatpak, perhaps (I know there's a script to do this for AppImages), and use this in our build infrastructure? Ben Rosser
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
