Michael Catanzaro commented: > Another option I'm starting to consider is to only build them as flatpaks > (and preinstall them as flatpaks in our upcoming OS images). This seems the > logical next step to me in the context of > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-build-meta/issues/142 Surely that should be the goal. We don't have any reason to continue non-flatpak builds, right? > Its kinda weird, cause what we will end up publishing will be different from > the manifest in the apps repo which is what Builder and the maintainers are > going to be using to be using to build and test their apps. If everybody was > using buildstream this wouldn't be much of an issue, but our current > developer tooling is mostly around `flatpak-builder` and bst adoption hasn't > been great. I think we should aim for making it as painless as possible for > the app maintainers, even if that means the RT would have to maintain a > separate build definition (gnome-build-meta) and let the apps continue using > their flatpak manifests as their source of truth. Hm, this is a really good point. I took it for granted that the buildstream manifest would be the source of truth and that core apps would drop their flatpak-builder manifests. We really do *not* want to have two separate build definitions. It's an unmaintainable disaster; the whole point of gnome-build-meta is to unify all our core build definitions in one place. But that doesn't work for users building the app locally in Builder. I think that's the only use-case that's not satisfied by buildstream. So we'll certainly need to discuss this. > +1, it seems redundant currently to doing it both ways. One issue though, is > what would happen to the development/test experience with buildstream (nobody > uses it yet, but we shouldn't make the workflow worse). Would this mean that > for every change we would have to checkout a flatpak bundle and run that? And > if so what would be the required changes in the bst plugin to make this as > easier, like `flatpak-builder --install` or such. Good question. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitLab: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/Infrastructure/issues/133#note_511669 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.gnome.org.
_______________________________________________ gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
