----- Original Message ----- > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > I strongly dispute the idea that Fedora must be tied to a particular > > > packaging technology. > > > > The particular packaging technology is what ensures that we have a > > coherent, > > integrated system. Flatpaks by design cannot offer the kind of integration > > that native packages can offer, neither in terms of using shared system > > libraries (saving space), nor in terms of user experience (even with > > "portals", there will always be kinds of interoperation that the sandbox > > just cannot allow). > > > > And if the users will get their packages in a generic format rather than a > > native Fedora format, what advantage do they get from getting it from > > Fedora > > to begin with? The point of delivering Fedora packages is to integrate them > > into the distribution. Only native packages can provide that. > > Exactly, upstreams might as well just deliver .zip files which unpack > into a single directory and provide a ./application.sh script to set > up the LD_LIBRARY_PATH and cgroups right. That's basically what we're > talking about here when you strip it back to the essentials.
That's about as accurate as me saying that virtualisation is essentially using the CPU's builtin virtualisation functionality when you strip it back to the essentials. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
