Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 27 Approves More Features: Flatpaks, NSS, RPM 4.14, Installer

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

  • Fedora 27 Approves More Features: Flatpaks, NSS, RPM 4.14, Installer

    Phoronix: Fedora 27 Approves More Features: Flatpaks, NSS, RPM 4.14, Installer

    At Friday's Fedora Engineering and Steering Committee (FESCo) there were yet more features approved for the current Fedora Linux development cycle...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...S-Install-i686

  • #2
    Originally posted by GhostOfFunkS View Post
    Ironically it is a distro shaping the secure cross-distro future.
    Soon everyone will welcome RedHat as our benevolent Linux overlords.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think future of cross distro packaging is snaps not flatpaks.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KRiloshart View Post
        I think future of cross distro packaging is snaps not flatpaks.
        I think you are very wrong.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KRiloshart View Post
          I think future of cross distro packaging is snaps not flatpaks.
          People use snaps?

          Comment


          • #6
            Red Hat (Fedora) should work with AMD to get ROCm working out of the box on Fedora. Having a full blown OpenCL on AMD GPUs on Fedora would be amazing.

            This would be very fitting considering that F25 release was all about getting OpenCL working out of the box on Fedora.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm a bit concerned about the perceived direction of making of flatpaks mandatory and the elimination of the rpm counterpart. There was a lively discussion on the mailing list that discussed this at length. I have no issues with flatpaks per se, but if they are so great then they would win by default... there isn't any need to make them mandatory and the rpm optional - unless you are wanting to force the issue, which some apparently do.
              Last edited by gbcox; 07-22-2017, 03:10 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gbcox View Post
                I'm a bit concerned about the perceived direction of making of flatpaks mandatory and the elimination of the rpm counterpart. There was a lively discussion on the mailing list that discussed this at length. I have no issues with flatpaks per se, but if they are so great then they would win by default... there isn't any need to make them mandatory and the rpm optional - unless you are wanting to force the issue, which some apparently do.
                Making a massive change like that is going to be a massive PITA. It's normal that a sizeable amount of people don't want it.

                It is sad that it has to go like this but it's the fastest way to get Flatpacks up to speed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  Making a massive change like that is going to be a massive PITA. It's normal that a sizeable amount of people don't want it.

                  It is sad that it has to go like this but it's the fastest way to get Flatpacks up to speed.
                  Yeah, I read through the minutes of the Fesco meeting and contrary the discussion on the mailing list it appeared this was a more of a "let's proceed with caution" vote, not a vote to make flatpaks mandatory. It that were to happen it would have to go before Fesco again - which is reasonable. I think some of the people on the discussion list got a bit ahead of themselves. This was probably more of a flatpak vs. snap strategy than anything else.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GhostOfFunkS View Post
                    The discussion is lively because of Kevin Kofler. Remove him and associated packages from the equation and everything is just fine.
                    Kevin makes good valid points... and he wasn't the only one who voiced concerns. I think more of the issues were concerned about the theoretical end state about making flatpaks mandatory, getting rid of rpms, etc. - which wasn't the issue in front of Fesco; people were getting a little ahead of themselves and that was all clarified in the Fesco meeting. As I alluded to in a previous comment, this had just as much to do with political concerns as with technical issues. It was the elephant in the room that no one discussed but everyone was thinking about.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X