On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:47 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:43 AM Ian McInerney <ian.s.mciner...@ieee.org> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 9:26 PM Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Filtered_Flathub_Applications > >> > >> == Summary == > >> Enabling third-party repositories will now create a Flathub remote > >> that is a filtered view of Flathub. > >> > >> > >> == Detailed Description == > >> '''''Note that this proposal is about user experience, procedures, and > >> technology - the high-level concept has already been discussed and > >> approved by the Fedora Council and FESCO.''''' > >> > >> Enabling third-party repositories will now create a Flathub remote > >> that is a filtered view of Flathub. This means that applications on > >> Flathub that have been explicitly approved (by a new process proposed > >> here) will be available in GNOME Software and on the > >> <code>flatpak</code> command line. If the user follows following the > >> instructions on https://flatpak.org/setup/Fedora/, then the filter is > >> removed, and the user gets a full view of Flathub. > >> > >> Roughly speaking, the criteria for including software is a) will not > >> cause legal or other problems for Fedora to point to b) does not > >> overlap Fedora Flatpaks or software in Fedora that could easily be > >> made into a Flatpak c) works reasonably well. For Fedora 35, We expect > >> to include all software from the top 50 most popular applications on > >> Flathub that meet these criteria plus selected other software of > >> interest to the Fedora target audience - Fedora community members are > >> welcome to propose additions. > > > > > > Does this mean that FESCO is now forcing Fedora packagers to maintain > Fedora Flatpaks and respond to their related issues when many of them seem > to be created without the packagers' knowledge/consent, and there is no > documentation in the packaging guidelines/wiki about how to actually do > anything for them, or information about where the manifests for them > actually live? > > > > Of course not. This is a criteria for what we permit through the > filter from Flathub. The idea is that nothing we offer from Flathub > should be possible to ship in Fedora itself. That is, it's truly only > possible to be available as a third-party app. > > Basically, if something is available in Fedora, it *cannot* be > available through Flathub by default. > But that is exactly why it seems to me packagers are being forced to care about the Fedora Flatpaks. Take the Audacity package as an example (since I am one of the people maintaining it). There is a usable Flatpak for it on Flathub, and I as a packager don't want to need to learn the Fedora systems to build and maintain a Fedora Flatpak for it (since there seems to be little to no documentation on how to do it). According to this policy - since there is an Audacity package in Fedora, the Flathub version couldn't be included. If we don't have a maintained version of the Flatpak in Fedora, then why are we blocking it from Flathub? -Ian
_______________________________________________ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
