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
