Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 27 Could See More GUI Apps As Flatpaks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fedora 27 Could See More GUI Apps As Flatpaks

    Phoronix: Fedora 27 Could See More GUI Apps As Flatpaks

    With Fedora 27 we are likely to see broader support for Flatpaks and more of Fedora's graphical applications distributed in Flatpak form...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...7-GUI-Flatpaks

  • #2
    Cool, at first I didn't like the name Flatpak, but now I can barely remember it's old name, it was something-app AFAIR

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by andrei_me View Post
      Cool, at first I didn't like the name Flatpak, but now I can barely remember it's old name, it was something-app AFAIR
      XDG-App
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Terrible. Just stop guys.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post
          Terrible. Just stop guys.
          what?

          Comment


          • #6
            Bah. Humbug.

            I still see Flatpaks as completely useless, a reinvention of already existing wheels, and something that could have easily been done using RPM or DEB already.

            An existing packaging system could have supported it by creating virtual packages that declare what library interfaces have to be installed for each support level.

            These Flatpak things are merely a newer fancied up version of LSB and chroots and that never went anywhere.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post
              Bah. Humbug.

              I still see Flatpaks as completely useless, a reinvention of already existing wheels, and something that could have easily been done using RPM or DEB already.

              An existing packaging system could have supported it by creating virtual packages that declare what library interfaces have to be installed for each support level
              The main issue here is that if you add these capabilities to an existing package system then it's no more cross-distro, or you end in a funny situation like Nix package manager that can create its own distro in a folder inside your distro.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                ... or you end in a funny situation like Nix package manager that can create its own distro in a folder inside your distro.
                That is pretty exactly what Flatpak is doing yeah.

                Distros can override things so that Flatpak is using their existing packages for things like a Gnome 3.24 base, but then they could have done that for DEB in an RPM system too.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post
                  That is pretty exactly what Flatpak is doing yeah.
                  Uhm, I thought I was more clear, but reading the above again... I think I was not.

                  I meant that current package managers are too entrenched into each distro (both politically and technically, they are tailored to each distro's needs) to be a good candidate for a cross-platform one, making a separate one meant to be cross-distro (i.e. lacks any affiliation and code connected to how each distro is made) is the best way.

                  After all, it's not like it is terribly hard to make a package manager these days, especially if it is dumping all stuff in its own folder so it has 100% control over that. Traditional package managers are pretty old hat by now. It's adding the new features that is hard/new.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post
                    Bah. Humbug.

                    I still see Flatpaks as completely useless, a reinvention of already existing wheels, and something that could have easily been done using RPM or DEB already.

                    An existing packaging system could have supported it by creating virtual packages that declare what library interfaces have to be installed for each support level.

                    These Flatpak things are merely a newer fancied up version of LSB and chroots and that never went anywhere.
                    So what? Go ahead then and present your solution to the public, of course with all features that Flatpak has to offer implemented.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X