On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:24 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Miller 
> .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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
For atomic workstation, this is the goal. We even need that, because in
that setup the OS (/usr) would be a read-only image (based on rpms), so
we could not install new rpms. Instead we'd take our existing rpms and
create flatpaks from them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to