Fedora 29 Is On Track With A Lot Of Changes

[Sniperfox47]

The question is: Does it really require it (technically) or was it made a requirement, so they can iput a leg through the door and shove it down peoples throaths. I was using Fedora 29 long before it became a beta. Flaptak existed that time but was never coupled with anything. The same approach as systemd did long time ago by swallowing udev.

The xdg desktop portal readme previously reported that it needed flatpak so the package maintainer likely just read the readme and figured it was telling the truth.

The package *is* designed with flatpak distribution in mind, although Fedora does not currently distribute it as a flatpak.

No need to assume malificent intent, especially by community contributors.

[pal666]

The question is: Does it really require it (technically) or was it made a requirement, so they can iput a leg through the door and shove it down peoples throaths.

the answer is obvious: you need more tinfoil

I was using Fedora 29 long before it became a beta. Flaptak existed that time but was never coupled with anything.

well, you using fedora does not guard you from being clueless. i am using f28 and here is what flatpak coupled with:

# dnf remove flatpak
Dependencies resolved.
================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ========================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ========================================
Removing:
flatpak x86_64 1.0.2-1.fc28 @updates 3.9 M
Removing dependent packages:
fwupdate-libs x86_64 11-2.fc28 @updates 61 k
gnome-software x86_64 3.28.2-2.fc28 @updates 17 M
rpm-ostree-libs x86_64 2018.8-1.fc28 @updates 401 k
xdg-desktop-portal x86_64 1.0-1.fc28 @updates 1.4 M
xdg-desktop-portal-gtk x86_64 1.0-1.fc28 @updates 704 k
Removing unused dependencies:
PackageKit x86_64 1.1.10-1.fc28 @updates 2.6 M
appstream-data noarch 28-9.fc28 @updates 17 M
comps-extras noarch 24-3.fc28 @anaconda 83 k
epiphany-runtime x86_64 1:3.28.3.1-1.fc28 @updates 1.8 M
flatpak-libs x86_64 1.0.2-1.fc28 @updates 910 k
fwupd x86_64 1.0.9-1.fc28 @updates 2.4 M
fwupd-labels x86_64 1.0.9-1.fc28 @updates 1.3 M
fwupdate-efi x86_64 11-2.fc28 @updates 140 k
libappstream-glib x86_64 0.7.11-1.fc28 @updates 1.0 M
libgcab1 x86_64 1.1-3.fc28 @updates 203 k
libsmbios x86_64 2.4.2-1.fc28 @updates 322 k
libstemmer x86_64 0-10.585svn.fc28 @anaconda 350 k
ostree x86_64 2018.8-1.fc28 @updates 516 k
ostree-libs x86_64 2018.8-1.fc28 @updates 930 k

Transaction Summary
================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ========================================
Remove 20 Packages

btw, flatpak can install software no more than browser can install software, so i find your reasoning for avoiding flatpak to be pure idiocy

[torsionbar28]

What I find disgusting is this:

A new version of flatpak made it into the 29 repo a couple of days ago. And they made it mandatory to gdm and gnome-shell. At least these packages are enforced for deinstallation of you try to uninstall flatpak.

It is absolutely not necessary to put such a dependency on flatpak since it is totally optional (at least it was so).

It is impossible to run and install Gnome3 on workstations where we mandatory disable all sorts of package grabbing and installing features. Temporarely we passed this by generating an empty flatpak.spec stub, so the stuff won't make it on our systems.

Forcing you to remove GNOME 3 sounds like a *feature* to me.

Sincerely,
Fedora MATE spin user

But seriously, the MESA bump to 18.2 is the only thing I'm really looking forward to in F29, as that will enable Steam Play.