Il 13/05/23 03:04, Owen Taylor ha scritto:
> 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:
>>> 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.
> 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)
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...).
> In any case, a change to how we handle Flatpak releases in Koji could be done
> separately from this change proposal :-)
>
> - 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
