I can only say that from the beginning I'm disappointed – or maybe actually sad – that instead of focusing on a way to hide/exclude non-free software from Flathub, Fedora has chosen to directly compete with Flathub.


@barthalion Why would introducing an alternative to Flathub be considered to be a competition? Its not on many levels

@vrutkovs Hard not to see it as competition with a table like this: fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flatpak

Why Fedora user should choose to use Flathub, when number of applications, even if maintained there by authors themselves, is also available in "official" repositories?

It's just duplicated work, even if it's built with different tools.

@barthalion Fedora would re-use the RPM packages from is repo, so the content in the Fedora's flatpak repo would be curated and supported by Fedora maintainers - not random folks from Flathub repo with no obligations. This isn't meant to be an offence, but addresses a rather common issue with Flathub's structure - "who's responsible for updates, reviews and fixing issues there"?

@vrutkovs It's not offence either: Fedora packagers are as random as people maintaining software on Flathub. Comparing Fedora that exists since 2003(?) and Flathub that isn't even 3 years old yet is flawed with regard to various procedures surrounding security.

I am concerned of visibility/human aspect than the fact that flatpak supports OCI.


@barthalion in the end, yes, its just people. Some might trust Fedora more - the package spec is well-tested - some might rely on Flathub's expertise. I don't see a competition here.

OCI indeed is a wild wild west here, lets see if that would be the preferred way after some proper testing

Sign in to participate in the conversation

This is private instance. You can help by moving along