Recent searches
Search options
I'm sorry for painting with a too-broad brush in trying to make a distinction. I don't think it's unfair to say that Flathub's requirements (which I have read) are a lower barrier than all this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/. The Fedora guidelines are much longer and use "must" instead of "should" a lot more times. I also think it's fair to say that developers prefer the Flathub approach. But I shouldn't have made it sound like the wild west.
Earlier in the day, I had checked with someone who should know about the privilege escalation possibility, and it turns out they were mistaken and I repeated that. I'm sorry for that, and glad to be wrong.
I obviously wasn't clear enough to on what I said about the verified check — I certainly didn't think I was saying anything different from your longer version.
@mattdm @alatiera I don't think longer docs with more must equals higher barrier. it also omits the checks the linter does. So you at least need to add this page https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/linter and probably more.
I hadn't seen that (at least not recently!). It's very cool and I'm sure we could learn something from it. I'll make sure to mention it next time I talk publicly about this.
That said, I do think there's a basic fundamental difference. Let me try to put it neutrally....
Traditional distro packaging is concerned with integration, and with making everything consistently fit together in a way that is intended to provide user benefit. By this mechanism, we make everything better, helping keep software up to date, finding and helping fix bugs, providing user support, building for many architectures, and so on. Whenever possible, in collaboration with the upstream.
Flathub is concerned with connecting users and developers of applications in an easy way. It tends to trust the developers to do what they know is best for their software and their userbase. This includes dependencies, vendoring, vulnerability fixes, and so on. That doesn't mean there aren't checks and safeguards, but in the ideal, the project stays out of the way. This makes everything better by building a larger developer ecosystem, providing a Linux-wide application ecosystem that can be easier for both developers and end users.
Does this sound fair? (One can disagree about the actual impact and benefits, but both groups are concerned with both developers and end users and making things better for everyone.)
The traditional distro model comes heavily from an operator / sysadmin background, which is my background as well (in the distant past!).
The Fllathub approach, as I see it, comes from a more developer-centric viewpoint.
In the video conversation, I was trying to present the first perspective, having just read hundreds of comments saying that a huge part of Fedora should not exist.
I should have been more balanced, though, because I believe the traditional dev/ops dichotomy is obsolete. (Even if the term "devops" got driven into meaninglessness.)
> I was trying to present the first perspective, having just read hundreds of comments saying that a huge part of Fedora should not exist.
Fedora Flatpaks are not a huge part of Fedora. They are a script that takes rpms and creates an OCI container that can be consumed by Flatpak.
None of us care if Fedora continues to package apps or not. I personally think it's wasted effort but if people want to do that, that's their decision.
@mattdm @razze @alatiera What could you possibly achieve with Fedora Flatpaks that you couldn't by working with Flathub and upstream instead?
That is the crux of the problem. Fedora Flatpaks compete with Flathub, but neither Fedora nor Flathub has any benefit by doing this.
We could figure out how to collaborate instead, but you have chosen to double down on competing and in the process slandered Flathub and insulted everyone working on Flatpak and Flathub.