If there's one thing you can always count on in the Linux world it's that packaging can be a nightmare. The OBS Studio team are not happy with the Fedora folks due to Flatpak problems and threatened legal action.
The lesson is that Fedora Flatpak Repo needs to fuck off. It’s an anti-pattern to have an obscure flatpak repo with software that is packaged differently from everything else.
The entire point of flatpaks was to have a universal packaging format that upstream devs could make themselves, and Fedora is completely undermining it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the lesson we can learn here as stated by the author of the post?
There is no info why packaging failed. I can’t draw any obvious lesson from this post
The lesson is that Fedora Flatpak Repo needs to fuck off. It’s an anti-pattern to have an obscure flatpak repo with software that is packaged differently from everything else.
The entire point of flatpaks was to have a universal packaging format that upstream devs could make themselves, and Fedora is completely undermining it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.