Alberto Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: ... > I would say that the logic should be exactly the opposite ...
I did say: "At the very least, careful thought needs to be given to the implications of xdg-app for sandboxing, before the former is released into the wild." It seems important to examine how xdg-app and sandboxing will work together. ... > I don't think we > can realistically provide all the hooks that most apps need all at once and > delaying widespread adoption of bundles because of that seems like a net > lose. We want people using the bundling mechanism ASAP so that we can start > getting them into the toolchain, then we can learn what kind of tooling is > missing to get them to "upgrade" into sandboxing. I think that somewhat depends on how you envisage making xdg-app initially available: ie, whether initial releases will be marked as experimental or previews, and what kind of stability guarantees will be provided for runtimes. One of the primary goals of xdg-app is to provide a stable application development and deployment platform, after all. It would be a shame to give the framework a bad name because we didn't manage expectations. There is also a serious question about how packaged and bundled applications could sanely coexist on the same system. Allan _______________________________________________ gnome-os-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-os-list
