you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 1 year ago (7 children)

didn't read the article, but i never got the point of having a distro-specific flathub repo. isn't being distro-agnostic the main thing about flatpaks?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It's about making sure you know what is inside the flatpaks. If you make your own set of flatpaks, you can distribute them with the OS. It's not that fedora flatpaks aren't distro-agnostic, you can use them on any distro. They just want a set where they can verify the build process and trust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    sounds weird to me. aren't we replicating the repository problem if each distro decides to make a flatpak repo according to their own philosophies?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    i don't have an issue with multiple flatpak repos. i'd actually find it very interesting if we went a more decentralized route with flatpak (maybe kde, gnome, mozzila would each have their own repos). but i don't see the point of a distro-specific flatpak when we already have normal packages. compatibility is kind of a non-issue, since you're not supposed to install them elsewhere anyway (unlike flatpaks)

    also, i see absolutely no reason to use fedora's flatpak repo on debian given that flathub exists already. you could add it if you want it, but what's the point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)