224
Fedora threatened with legal action from OBS Studio due to their Flatpak packaging (www.gamingonlinux.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

Why don't you like fedora flatpaks?

Among other reasons, Fedora ensure that apps get a flatpak. Imagine there was no official flatpak, fedora would've made one. Just like fedora ensures that there are native ways to install it via dnf. On atomic distros, you want to use flatpaks very often. Hence it makes sense to package apps via flatpak.

Fedora ensures that there is not additional code in the app kind of like fdroid on phones.

Anyone can make flatpaks, not just the main dev.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I answered most of this in the other thread, but I am aware that anyone can make flatpaks. What I meant is that flatpaks were supposed to make it easier for devs to get their software to end users by allowing them to not have to worry about distro-specific packaging requirements or formats.

    But when someone else takes it upon themselves to make broken flatpaks, ones that you've requested they stop doing, now they're making things worse for everyone involved and should be considered a hostile fork and treated as such.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It reads as if fedora wanted to created a broke package. As if it was on purpose to annoy everyone. Do you think that was their intention?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago*

    The OBS and Bottles packages have been broken for a long time. Long enough that both upstream projects asked them to stop many months ago. They don't get to pretend it was a mistake. This isn't just another case of a minor packaging bug getting to users. They are packaging the software incorrectly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Not OP, but for me the issue is if you want to override the default and make it opt-out, especially sine the opt-out process isn't that well documented, then you should realize that support is a necessary part of that process and fix problems as they arise rather than resorting to name calling and hostile behavior when something you published is broken. It's a responsibility of taking on that kind of project. Either that or make it explicitly opt-in and give users a warning like with beta version opt-in notifications that the packages are not official and issues may not be fixed as quickly as the official releases.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent