On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:28 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
> * In fedscm_admin: Map flatpaks namespace to the ‘module’ PDC branch
> type when storing the SLA into the PDC, to avoid PDC changes, and
> because the SLA really is a module SLA.
Digging into this, I don't think this is right - it would break
+1, it would be nice to separate flatpaks from the actual distribution.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
https://splentity.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
+1 from me. That seems like a nice reasonable thing for us to do. :)
kevin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 12:28:51PM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> * Reduce some confusion. A Flatpak is a module, but it’s *also* a
> container, and the dist-git repository will include files for both.
I'm +1 to this for this reason. I think it's less confusing than the
downside loose-module confusi
Currently, the content for a Flatpak in Fedora can be found in
modules/. E.g.:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/quadrapassel/tree/master - I’d
like to propose creating a separate namespace in src.fedoraproject.org
- flatpaks/
Benefits:
* Allow automation to easily distinguish Flatpaks from o
