Hey, On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:51:54PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:12 PM Christophe Fergeau <cferg...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > I think the main objection is with making spicy too easy to install (and > > to upgrade). Once we ask someone to test a spicy flatpak and it works > > for them, we don't want them to stick to it, start requesting for > > flathub availability so that it gets regularly updated, and for this one > > small feature that would make spicy a perfect fit for them (which is why > > in the first place Marc-André has been trying to discourage use of > > spicy). > > > > Indeed. So far it is there as an "example": > > commit 64a0eeab8ddd2ca6b2d3b57b7f46e99877bfab7e > Author: Pavel Grunt <pgr...@redhat.com> > Date: Fri Jul 21 11:02:57 2017 +0200 > > Add flatpak builder manifest file for spicy > > To give an example for creating flatpaks depending on spice-gtk > > > Tbh, I think we should remove the flatpak from spice-gtk source tree. > It doesn't make much sense to have it included imho, unless we have a > good reason to build it on a regular basis, which imho is not > something we need as a library or even a testing client.
Is there a repository of flatpak build snippets these days? If not, I think it can be useful to document a canonical way of building spice-gtk in a flatpak, rather than having every application build spice-gtk in its own way. Christophe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
