Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dne 22.6.2016 v 19:19 Jiri Eischmann napsal(a): > Michael Catanzaro píše v St 22. 06. 2016 v 10:22 -0500: >> On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 15:43 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> Eric, >>> >>> So how about similar article about Flatpack? I'd be interested to

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Michael Catanzaro píše v St 22. 06. 2016 v 10:22 -0500: > On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 15:43 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Eric, > > > > So how about similar article about Flatpack? I'd be interested to > > see > > the comparison between these two ... > > > > > > Vít > > FWIW, I saw some blog last

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 15:40 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: >> This is a slight tangent, but by "remove Fedora packages", do you >> mean >> actually remove them from the distribution entirely or simply not >> show the >>

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 15:43 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Eric, > > So how about similar article about Flatpack? I'd be interested to see > the comparison between these two ... > > > Vít FWIW, I saw some blog last week about how they used a debug build of LibreOffice to build the snap, which is

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 15:43 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Eric, > > So how about similar article about Flatpack? I'd be interested to see > the comparison between these two ... > > > Vít FWIW, I saw some blog last week about how they used a debug build of LibreOffice to build the snap, which is

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Dne 14.6.2016 v 21:06 Eric Griffith napsal(a): > > I'm testing it out for Phoronix. The copr works correctly, it installs > fine. Running snapper works fine, once you figure out what the correct > instructions should be (snapcraft.io 's > instructions are slightly wrong). > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:14:29 -0300 "Gerald B. Cox" wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Jiri Eischmann > wrote: > > > > > KDE has been interested in Flatpak for over a year. They even have a > > KDE runtime and a couple of KDE apps packaged: > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:05:01 -0400, you wrote: >I still think we, as a distribution, should not be in the business of >discouraging downstream packaging in favor of *upstream* provided flatpaks, >though (which was my original objection to the idea). Which is better for the user: 1) upstream

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place, > > > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak. > > Well, assuming

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/16/2016 05:57 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:44:11 -0400, Przemek wrote: I get that, but as I said, RPM can have sandboxing too, and so far it looks like the main vulnerability vector is unpatched software. Flatpack wouldn't have helped with heartbleed, and the right

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:53:05AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Well, it's strongly discouraged currently: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Relocatable_packages > it's not at all easy to make work right, so not sure this is the right > tool for this use. Well, the use case

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:25:13AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > Yes, is the direction I'm thinking. The Layered Image Build Service we > > have for Docker can automatically rebuild when there are updates to > > component RPMs, and it'd be nice if we could channel Flatpak through > > that. Flatpak

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 14:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > There's an article on Ars as well. The "working with Fedora > developers" > claim is probably a misunderstanding on Softpedia's part; it's not > true, and I doubt Canonical would have said that. Just for the record... the Softpedia

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Alexander Larsson píše v Čt 16. 06. 2016 v 21:11 +0200: > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:24 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Miller > ct.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > > > ship pip, npm, etc?

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/16/2016 03:09 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote: On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:07 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place, there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak. Definitely true for third party packages that currenly require

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:24 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Miller > .org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > > ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason > > I chimed > > > in on this thread

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:07 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place, > > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak. >  Definitely true for third party packages that currenly require > pip/npm/rubygems/(curl | sh  :), but you

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > That's precisely what they are doing on non-Ubuntu distributions, > > > disabling confinement. > > Thats is pretty crappy. That means things will keep accidentally >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason I chimed > > in on this thread initially, is with the idea that these new >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/16/2016 01:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason I chimed in on this thread initially, is with the idea that these new containerized packaging systems are in some way

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: >> ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason I chimed >> in on this thread initially, is with the idea that these new

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason I chimed > in on this thread initially, is with the idea that these new containerized > packaging systems are in some way *superior* to traditional packaging. Or > at

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ben Rosser wrote: > In my vision of the future, we'd ship flatpaks and friends as a supplement > to, but not as a replacement of, RPMs. In fact, we'd go the other way. If > some GUI application was install-able as a flatpak in Fedora, and

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > > KDE has been interested in Flatpak for over a year. They even have a > KDE runtime and a couple of KDE apps packaged: > https://community.kde.org/Flatpak That's a good thing...but I noticed that the page you

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:18:00 -0400, you wrote: > > >Snaps function very much like how Apple's ecosystem does for software > >delivery, and perhaps even Microsoft's UWP ecosystem too. It's very > >clear that the

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > >> Challenge for the marketing folks: can we get these tech journalism >> sites writing about Flatpak instead? About GNOME Software's new support >> for displaying and installing Flatpaks in F24? Otherwise, I

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Challenge for the marketing folks: can we get these tech journalism > sites writing about Flatpak instead? About GNOME Software's new support > for displaying and installing Flatpaks in F24? Otherwise, I see >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:18:00 -0400, you wrote: >Snaps function very much like how Apple's ecosystem does for software >delivery, and perhaps even Microsoft's UWP ecosystem too. It's very >clear that the purpose of Snaps are to provide avenues to "encourage" >people to lock into the Ubuntu

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) said: > And frankly, if you're trying to solve delivering software in a > cross-distro fashion, you're doing it wrong. Take for example how RPMs > "work": packages are generated with a set of generic dependencies > based on the symbols of libraries and programs.

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Background info: In the Workstation working group, we're currently > planning to allow replacing RPM packages for graphical apps with > Flatpaks. We're also planning to remove Fedora packages for selected > apps that are offered as Flatpaks by upstream. For instance, if

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 09:18 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >> Also, keep in mind that Flatpaks are not the only new type of software >> we intend to support in Fedora. I know other folks are looking into >>

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 09:18 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Also, keep in mind that Flatpaks are not the only new type of software > we intend to support in Fedora. I know other folks are looking into > supporting Docker containers; I believe that's a Server WG initiative? One of the

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15 June 2016 at 22:07, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:08:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 17:08 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > > > So I was rather surprised

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > The container/security thing is nothing specific or special to Flatpak > and others, in fact it's more theater than anything else anyway, as it > only works when conditions are "just right" (i.e., Wayland, > supercharged

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Przemek Klosowski writes: > It would be nice if there was a 'container snapshot' facility that > would convert between a native application package from Fedora or > Debian and a portable container---possibly both ways. Obviously, > native->container is desirable for

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:08:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 17:08 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > > So I was rather surprised by this Softpaedia article today: > > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:46:43PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Thats is pretty crappy. That means things will keep accidentally being > > packaged that depends on things not in the ubuntu core. It also means > > that there is zero sandboxing. > Can you elaborate on how this is different from

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > >> I *strongly* disagree here. The xdg-app folks seem to be doing a >> pretty good job with their sandbox. The kernel attack surface is >> reduced considerably, as is

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > That's precisely what they are doing on non-Ubuntu distributions, > > > disabling confinement. > > Thats is pretty crappy. That means things will keep accidentally

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15 Jun 2016 17:47, "Matthew Miller" wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > That's precisely what they are doing on non-Ubuntu distributions, > > > disabling confinement. > > Thats is pretty crappy. That means things will

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > That's precisely what they are doing on non-Ubuntu distributions, > > disabling confinement. > Thats is pretty crappy. That means things will keep accidentally being > packaged that depends on things not in the ubuntu core. It

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/15/2016 01:24 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: Well, if a packager wants to maintain it, why not? > >As someone who's a bit skeptical about containers as the future of software >distribution, I'd like to continue getting "traditionally packaged" >applications from Fedora where possible. I became a

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15 Jun 2016 17:25, "Matthew Miller" wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:44:27PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > Considering how this actively negates the security of our distribution and > > how this is being promoted in the media, with them pointing to the > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 16:32 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > >  > > Snappy fundamentally relies on apparmour to do confinement (i.e. it > > doesn't use filesystem namespaces like flatpak), how does this work > on > > fedora? You can't use selinux and apparmour at the same time, so > this > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:44:27PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > Considering how this actively negates the security of our distribution and > how this is being promoted in the media, with them pointing to the > snapcraft site and the instructions there with COPR looking like it's on > approved

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15 Jun 2016 17:12, "Rahul Sundaram" wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM James Hogarth wrote: >> >> Considering how this actively negates the security of our distribution and how this is being promoted in the media, with them pointing to the snapcraft site and

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM James Hogarth wrote: > Considering how this actively negates the security of our distribution and > how this is being promoted in the media, with them pointing to the > snapcraft site and the instructions there with COPR looking like it's on > approved Fedora

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 17:08 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > So I was rather surprised by this Softpaedia article today: > > http://news.softpedia.com/news/snap-packages-become-the-universal-bin > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15 Jun 2016 16:34, "Matthew Miller" wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:08:07PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > Snappy fundamentally relies on apparmour to do confinement (i.e. it > > doesn't use filesystem namespaces like flatpak), how does this work on > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:08:07PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > Snappy fundamentally relies on apparmour to do confinement (i.e. it > doesn't use filesystem namespaces like flatpak), how does this work on > fedora? You can't use selinux and apparmour at the same time, so this > shouldn't be

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15 Jun 2016 16:09, "Alexander Larsson" wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > So I was rather surprised by this Softpaedia article today: > > http://news.softpedia.com/news/snap-packages-become-the-universal-bin > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Chris Murphy > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Josh Boyer > > wrot:e > >> > >> How do you plan on addressing

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 08:24 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/15/2016 06:27 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer > > wrote: > > > On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > > > I *strongly* disagree here.  The

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > So I was rather surprised by this Softpaedia article today: > http://news.softpedia.com/news/snap-packages-become-the-universal-bin > ary-format-for-all-gnu-linux-distributions-505241.shtml > It claims that Canonical state that they have

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > I'm also worried about lifecycle issues here. What if some popular > upstream makes a popular Flatpak, we ditch the RPM packaging, and then > upstream stops updating it, or does a horrible job - how do we get

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/14/2016 09:08 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Certainly we're not going to come along and try to delete packages over the maintainers' objections. In general, I expect package maintainers would be deciding whether or not to make the switch, but yeah: if the upstream developers request that

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

> On 15/06/16 02:18, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 21:46 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> I suspect this view originates in a very Gnomeish view of the > >> world > >> where upstream and the Fedora packagers are very close but I > >> wonder > >> how > >> well it matches with

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Josh Boyer > wrot:e >> >> How do you plan on addressing the problem reporting issue? In your >> example, the Inkscape package will still exist in RPM

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 03:02:29PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I was thinking remove the Fedora package. What's the point in > maintaining a secret Fedora package for a graphical app, when we're > going to be presenting a different version of that app to users? And as > Josh says, this would

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

As many others have expressed, third-party RPMs tend to be done very poorly, Oracle Java is a good bad example. That said, if it's something a user wants to install on their system, that's their prerogative, but it's not part of Fedora and shouldn't be. What we could do is make it easier to

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Josh Boyer wrot:e > > How do you plan on addressing the problem reporting issue? In your > example, the Inkscape package will still exist in RPM form for other > Editions. That means there are potentially two versions of Inkscape, >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 08:57 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > I have far more worries about third party rpms which can put files  > anyway, run any scriptlets they like at install time, and generally  > interfere with the system as a whole. Yeah, I'm not sure I like this part of the plan either. The

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:08 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:53 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > I mean I really hope you're not saying that upstream developers > > will > > be  > > able to start demanding that a third party packager's work is > > removed  > > from

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 10:54 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 15.06.2016 08:24, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > On 06/15/2016 06:27 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer > > om> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM,

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15.06.2016 08:24, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/15/2016 06:27 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >>> I *strongly* disagree here. The xdg-app folks seem to be doing

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15/06/16 02:18, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 21:46 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: I suspect this view originates in a very Gnomeish view of the world where upstream and the Fedora packagers are very close but I wonder how well it matches with situations where upstream and

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 15 Jun 2016 02:19, "Michael Catanzaro" wrote: > > Hi, > > You're right, we hadn't yet planned for how to handle spins (at least > I'm unaware of any such plans). Don't worry, nobody's going to start > removing packages if that means making apps inaccessible to folks not >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Jun 14, 2016 11:24 PM, "Florian Weimer" wrote: > > On 06/15/2016 06:27 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> >>> On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >>> I *strongly* disagree

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/15/2016 06:27 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: I *strongly* disagree here. The xdg-app folks seem to be doing a pretty good job with their sandbox. The kernel

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/15/2016 03:04 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: In the specific case where upstream decides to ship a Flatpak and wants to distribute that Flatpak in Fedora, then it seems advantageous to make that available in Fedora rather than our RPMs, so you get updates from upstream, exactly the way

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:45:25PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > I was thinking remove the Fedora package. What's the point in > > maintaining a secret Fedora package for a graphical app, when we're > > going to be presenting a different version of that app to users? > > > Well, if a packager

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > >> I *strongly* disagree here. The xdg-app folks seem to be doing a >> pretty good job with their sandbox. The kernel attack surface is >> reduced considerably, as is

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: I *strongly* disagree here. The xdg-app folks seem to be doing a pretty good job with their sandbox. The kernel attack surface is reduced considerably, as is the attack surface against the user via ptrace and filesystem access. If Wayland is

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 16:45 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > >> Well, if a packager wants to maintain it, why not? > >> > >> As someone

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 16:45 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: >> Well, if a packager wants to maintain it, why not? >> >> As someone who's a bit skeptical about containers as the future of >> software >> distribution, I'd

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Hi, You're right, we hadn't yet planned for how to handle spins (at least I'm unaware of any such plans). Don't worry, nobody's going to start removing packages if that means making apps inaccessible to folks not using Workstation. Some compatibility story is clearly needed beforehand. Igor

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 16:45 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > Well, if a packager wants to maintain it, why not? > > As someone who's a bit skeptical about containers as the future of > software > distribution, I'd like to continue getting "traditionally packaged" > applications from Fedora where

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:53 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > I mean I really hope you're not saying that upstream developers will > be  > able to start demanding that a third party packager's work is > removed  > from Fedora! Hm... it's not supposed to be an antagonistic process. We were expecting it

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 14/06/16 21:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote: I was thinking remove the Fedora package. What's the point in maintaining a secret Fedora package for a graphical app, when we're going to be presenting a different version of that app to users? And as Josh says, this would also create confusion

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 15:40 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > This is a slight tangent, but by "remove Fedora packages", do you > > mean > > actually remove them from the distribution entirely or simply not > > show the

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 15:40 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > This is a slight tangent, but by "remove Fedora packages", do you > mean > actually remove them from the distribution entirely or simply not > show the > packaged version in e.g. GNOME Software in favor of the upstream > Flatpak? > The latter

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

When DNF will be able to install flatpack pkgs then we can stop supporting distro packages for that. -Igor Gnatenko On Jun 14, 2016 9:33 PM, "Michael Catanzaro" wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > Does anyone in marketing or development now

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On 14/06/16 20:32, Michael Catanzaro wrote: We have not considered, and need to discuss, whether to allow that snapcore package into Fedora proper; there's a strong argument to be made that we should accept all free software, but doing that could undercut our Flatpak effort. If popular

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >> Does anyone in marketing or development now what the article is >> referring >> to and what's going on? > > Hi, > > There's an article on Ars as well. The

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > We're also planning to remove Fedora packages for selected > apps that are offered as Flatpaks by upstream. For instance, if > (hypothetical) Inkscape were to offer a Flatpak download on their web > site, the

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > Does anyone in marketing or development now what the article is > referring > to and what's going on? Hi, There's an article on Ars as well. The "working with Fedora developers" claim is probably a misunderstanding on Softpedia's part;

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

I'm testing it out for Phoronix. The copr works correctly, it installs fine. Running snapper works fine, once you figure out what the correct instructions should be (snapcraft.io's instructions are slightly wrong). Applications appear to run correctly and integrate fine in the Workstation

Fedora development of Snap packages

So I was rather surprised by this Softpaedia article today: http://news.softpedia.com/news/snap-packages-become-the-universal-binary-format-for-all-gnu-linux-distributions-505241.shtml It claims that Canonical state that they have been working with Fedora developers to make this the universal