On Sat, May 13, 2023, 4:24 AM Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Il 13/05/23 03:04, Owen Tay rt I look > > On Fri, May 12, 2023, 1:03 PM Mattia Verga via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> Il 10/05/23 12:54, Aoife Moloney ha scritto: >> M kk kk kk kk o kk kk kk I I'll k> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlatpaksWithoutModules >> > >> > >> I've never tried to make a flatpak because I was scared by the need of >> firstly build modules and I'm really happy to see this change moving on. >> >> However, there's something I can't understand: AFAIK, a flatpak is >> platform independent, so a flatpak built on F39 can be installed on any >> Fedora version or even on other Linux distributions... right? >> So, why having all those "Fedora Containers" releases in Bodhi which >> follow Fedora branches? Isn't just one Fedora Containers release enough? >> What happens if one builds the same flatpak on multiple Fedora >> Containers releases? >> infrastructure/new_issue >> <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue> > > > The "F38 Flatpaks" release in Bodhi represents Flatpaks built with the F38 > package set against the F8 runtime. But, yes, as you say we handle Flatpaks > as a single stream. Once we release Firefox into "F39 Flatpaks", everybody > on all releases gets that and we never do an update in "F38 Flatpaks" again. > > If updates *do* get pushed on multiple releases, last pushed wins. Might > be useful if we found that we pushed something to early or broken - but > isn't normal. > > I was wondering if that was due to have the ability of building the > flatpak against a specific runtime. I mean, as I understand how a flatpak > works, a flatpak created from a koji build for f39 will be built against a > specific runtime (say, KDE available in f39 stable tags), but when we build > the same koji build for f40 we will be using a different runtime which may > not be compatible... so still having a Fedora Containers 39 release will > make the maintainer able to continue using the f39 runtime... I know I'm > quite confused, aren't I? > > If I search for fedora-toolbox updates in Bodhi, I now see there are > multiple updates released alongside each others at the same time > I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that fedora-toolbox is not a Flatpak at all and we have different bodhi releases and policies for Flatpaks and other containers. We naturally do want parallel versions of the toolbox container - you should be able to create a F37 Toolbox or a F38 Toolbox or ... > But what if we had a single release instead? > > On a technical level, we rely on separate releases because Bodhi is using > that to know what koji tag to pull from. So to merge them, we'd probably > need a single dest tag in Koji as well. But would it be more convenient and > less confusing for packagers and users? Would there be any performance or > UI problems from having a release in Bodhi that extends indefinitely? > > Would be simpler to have a single Koji dest tag which doesn't change > alongside Fedora branches, so that packagers only have to remember that > one? (provided that we don't want the ability to build multiple updates as > discussed above) > fedpkg automatically determined the target based on the runtime specified in container.yaml. We'd need separate targets in any case because the build tag where the packages installed in the container come from needs to be different based on the runtime version / fedora release. But the different targets could potentially share a single dest tag. One thing that would need to change in this model would be the name of the runtime container in koji/bodhi. We'd probably need to have it be flatpak-runtime-f38 or something like that, or it would be confusing to be doing parallel updates into a single dest tag and bodhi release. (The runtime needs security updates as long as we have any applications still using it.) > From a Bodhi POV, I don't think there would be any problem in extending a > release indefinitely... we currently have Fedora ELN running since 2020 and > with something like 80K updates and nothing as blown up (yet...) > Well, that answers that question :-) I've created: https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/15 to track this idea, and will bring it up in the next Fedora Flatpaks SIG meeting. Owen
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
