RPM packages must not require or recommend packages containing a .desktop file,

This rule confuses me. So an RPM package from a third party repository cannot depend on another RPM package (from the third party repository and/or from Fedora) if that package contains a desktop file?

RPM packages in a third party repository must not replace packages provided by official Fedora repositories
Third party repositories [of software packaged using other formats]can be used to supplement official Fedora software and, in some limited cases, be used to replace software that is included in the official Fedora repositories.

So I can package an alternate version of Firefox as a flatpak, but not as an RPM package?

This does not make sense. As described, this means that if a third party wraps and integrates packages from Fedora and from its own repo and those packages have .desktop files, they can't be in there? Given that we have console and web applications that provide those files, this seems particularly painful.

I think it'd be simpler to say each replacement should require FESCo approval.

This would trigger almost all the time, since at least both Workstation WG and KDE SIG both ship such enablement out of the box. It's simpler to just say let FESCo be the judge here.

Why would this ever reasonably be a preference? That would break our self-reliance principle embedded in how we deliver the distribution.

RPM packages must not require or recommend packages containing a .desktop file,

This rule confuses me. So an RPM package from a third party repository cannot depend on another RPM package (from the third party repository and/or from Fedora) if that package contains a desktop file?

Indeed. The motivation was to avoid pulling a lot of deps from a 3rd party package. But this rule only makes sense only sometimes. The general packaging guideline of not including unnecessary dependencies is enough. I'll remove this.

RPM packages in a third party repository must not replace packages provided by official Fedora repositories
Third party repositories [of software packaged using other formats]can be used to supplement official Fedora software and, in some limited cases, be used to replace software that is included in the official Fedora repositories.

So I can package an alternate version of Firefox as a flatpak, but not as an RPM package?

Yes. The way I understand this rule is that it makes sense to provide a firefox flatpak because the application runs in a different environment in this case. But it doesn't make sense to provide a different firefox rpm, because that'd just replace the distro firefox and all interesting changes can instead be introduced in the distro packages.

I don't care too much about this, and I'm happy to drop it if you think so.

line 92 of fesco/modules/ROOT/pages/Third_Party_Repository_Policy.adoc a day ago

I think it'd be simpler to say each replacement should require FESCo approval.

OK.

Why would this ever reasonably be a preference? That would break our self-reliance principle embedded in how we deliver the distribution.

That's a list of characteristics that might apply in some cases but not others. In this particular case, I'd say that if there's an upstream flatpak and an unrelated 3rd party flatpak, all other things equal, we might go for the upstream one.

This would trigger almost all the time, since at least both Workstation WG and KDE SIG both ship such enablement out of the box. It's simpler to just say let FESCo be the judge here.

This whole rule is unnecessary. The rules that say that a repo should be defined by a single package and that those definitions should be reused, but what one spin does should not affect others, together, means that the reasonable thing should happen without this rule. I'll remove it.

Updated. Please see the last commit for the summary message.

@ngompa, @churchyard — please take a look again.

Nit: between -> among

and which produces -> and produce

@zbyszek Other than the two grammar issues, this LGTM.

Updated with the suggested changes.

It covers repository definitions that integrate those third-party repositories definitions...

This seems rather complex and I fail to parse it.

allow the package to be enabled by default

allow the repository to be enabled by default.

It covers repository definitions that integrate those third-party repositories definitions...

This seems rather complex and I fail to parse it.

Indeed. I changed that now to "It covers repository definitions which are integrated with the usual package installation mechanisms like dnf or gnome-software." Together with the following paragraph about what is not covered, this should be pretty clear.

allow the package to be enabled by default

Fixed.

First big change is to say that the policy only applies to 3rd party repos which integrate with normal package installation mechanisms, and anything like pip/cargo/snap etc. is excluded. I think this is enough to clear up all confusion where pip is in violation of the policy.

My original PR came out of the Workstation Working Groups desire to include a subset of Flathub as a third party repository. What are the operating procedures for Flatpak repos with this version of the policy?

"Coprs that are hosted on Fedora Infrastructure" reads oddly to me. Perhaps just say 'Coprs' ?

This breaks the current setup in fedora workstation. The current workflow is that metadata only is enabled so gnome-software can 'see' things, but if they are in a 3rd party repo it can ask the user if they really want to enable that repo before installing. Without the metadata it just won't see those applications.

This is a pretty big re-write. Perhaps we should get a lookover by the council and/or legal?

Should we include that 3rd party repos cannot be used as part of creating fedora images? or is that obvious? or for another policy?

This is a pretty big re-write. Perhaps we should get a lookover by the council and/or legal?

Sorry, didn't go deep enough down the links... they punted to us. Still would be nice to get a legal ack, but not sure from whom.

In reply to @aday's comment:
[I wrote this a few days ago, but apparently didn't submit. I came back to the ticket to find the text waiting in the edit window :( ]

My original PR came out of the Workstation Working Groups desire to include a subset of Flathub as a third party repository. What are the operating procedures for Flatpak repos with this version of the policy?

The first question is whether this is covered by the proposed policy? Yes, because flatpaks as supported by gnome-software, the usual package installation mechanism.

I don't see state which packages would be provided from flathub. You mentioned "a filtered view". Below I assume the proposal is to provide some select flatpaks with additional software, and not replace rpms.

There's a bunch of rules in "Key requirements for third-party repositories". I think the flatpaks would satisfy those rules. In this case, Workstation SIG would give the approval to satisfy "Third party repositories must be approved by an active Fedora working group or SIG, or by FESCo."

If Steam is installed as a flatpak, the proposed policy explicitly does not cover things installed using Steam, because using Steam is "clearly separate from installation of Fedora packages".

So I think the proposed policy gives a path to Workstation SIG approval with some clear requirements. Does this answer your question?

In reply to @kevin:

"Coprs that are hosted on Fedora Infrastructure" reads oddly to me. Perhaps just say 'Coprs' ?

I'll make that change.

This is a pretty big re-write. Perhaps we should get a lookover by the council and/or legal?

I think it's mostly describing current practice. The policy is different, but it doesn't change much. But sure, we can ask legal to take a look.

Should we include that 3rd party repos cannot be used as part of creating fedora images? or is that obvious? or for another policy?

I think it's obvious, but it should be mentioned. I'll add that too.

This breaks the current setup in fedora workstation. The current workflow is that metadata only is enabled so gnome-software can 'see' things, but if they are in a 3rd party repo it can ask the user if they really want to enable that repo before installing. Without the metadata it just won't see those applications.

Indeed. I'll adjust the text to say that enabled_metadata=1 is OK. (That is what I was saying above: the policy is being adjusted to conform to reality.)

This breaks the current setup in fedora workstation. The current workflow is that metadata only is enabled so gnome-software can 'see' things, but if they are in a 3rd party repo it can ask the user if they really want to enable that repo before installing. Without the metadata it just won't see those applications.

This aspect of the policy was changed by Council back in March. You can see the corresponding commit here: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/c/45b77f2f73d8b32423947a5760765c561c3df3dc?branch=master

So, what is the actual behaviour: do we ask the question before enabling metadata as required by 45b77f2?

So, what is the actual behaviour: do we ask the question before enabling metadata as required by 45b77f2?

Workstation currently follows the old policy (3rd party repos not shipped on install media, and are provided with enabled_metadata=1). We plan on updating to the new behaviour (repos included in install media with enabled_metadata=0) - that's being tracked at https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/105 .

Ah ha. MIssed that change (was it announced anywhere?)

MIssed that change (was it announced anywhere?)

Not that I'm aware of. I'd assume that there will be some publicity once workstation starts using the new policy.

My original PR came out of the Workstation Working Groups desire to include a subset of Flathub as a third party repository. What are the operating procedures for Flatpak repos with this version of the policy?

The first question is whether this is covered by the proposed policy? Yes, because flatpaks as supported by gnome-software, the usual package installation mechanism.

I don't see state which packages would be provided from flathub. You mentioned "a filtered view". Below I assume the proposal is to provide some select flatpaks with additional software, and not replace rpms.

There's a bunch of rules in "Key requirements for third-party repositories". I think the flatpaks would satisfy those rules. In this case, Workstation SIG would give the approval to satisfy "Third party repositories must be approved by an active Fedora working group or SIG, or by FESCo."

If Steam is installed as a flatpak, the proposed policy explicitly does not cover things installed using Steam, because using Steam is "clearly separate from installation of Fedora packages".

So I think the proposed policy gives a path to Workstation SIG approval with some clear requirements. Does this answer your question?

It does answer my question - thanks. Although, I have to say that I don't find the policy to be very clear. One central issue is the scope of the policy:

• It's not clear why the policy is limited to DNF and whatever gnome-software supports. Some explanation would possibly help.
• It's not clear what it means for a software mechanism not to be covered by the policy (line 8). Can an edition ship third party repos for snap/pip/cargo/etc or not? It would be good if the policy could be explicit and just say.
• The gnome-software criteria feels arbitrary and slippery. gnome-software supports a range of software types, through a plugin architecture. It does firmware, snaps, flatpak, packages, rpm-ostree, etc etc. Those software types change over time, so it's a shifting target. In the future, we could easily introduce other software management tools which aren't gnome-software, but which are intended to be part of the default experience.
• What about other software instalation methods which aren't DNF and don't have gnome-software support, like Podman?

In general I think I'd prefer to see a straight list of the permitted package types for 3rd party repos, rather than the rule about gnome-software support.

If the feeling is that we should continue with this PR rather than my own, I can help with changes here if you'd like. However, if you do want to make significant changes to the policy, it's going to need more discussion and consultation with Fedora Council (something that I had hoped to avoid). And, if we go down that route, there are two further changes we should consider:

1. Splitting up the policy elements and responsibilities more clearly. Political aspects around software freedom, or issues around legal liability, are really Council's responsibility.
2. Create another policy which covers which repositories can be used as primary repos (ie. repos which are included in the install media and are enabled by default), since this is the logical counterpart to the 3rd party repos policy. This was actually covered in the 3rd party repos policy (see here), and I split it out in my own edits, with the intention of finding a new home for it.

I've created #36 as the tracker issue for this.

I've created #36 as the tracker issue for this.

Actually the tracker issue is https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2416 .

I pushed two commits:
- "Fix wording in various places" incorporates @dcantrell's patch (with some minor tweaks where the grammar got broken).
- "Replace the text "offer software in other formats in the future"" removes a paragraph that was talking about adjusting the policy for other formats. It wasn't useful: policy may always be adjusted in the future after all. And we already have those "other formats", e.g. flatpak, so the whole paragraph was confusing. I think this change is non-controversial, but ptal.

I talked with @aday today about his concerns raised above. I think we're mostly good, but he'll submit some adjustments to wording with the intent to make the intent clearer in various places.

If anyone wants to review/comment/adapt this, I suggest waiting for @aday's comments first.

Here's a small set of stylistic changes, generally just intended to make the policy clearer. I hope the plain diff is OK, and feel free to cherry pick.

3c3
< A third-party repository is any software repository that the Fedora Project does not officially maintain, including link:https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/[Copr repositories], as well as repositories that hosted outside of the Fedora Project.
---
> A third-party repository is any software repository that the Fedora Project does not officially maintain, including link:https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/[Copr repositories], as well as repositories that are hosted outside of the Fedora Project.
6c6
< It covers **repository definitions integrated with the usual package installation mechanisms** like `dnf` or `gnome-software`.
---
> It applies to **repository definitions integrated with the primary package installation mechanisms** like `dnf` or `gnome-software`. Unless this rule applies, this policy does **not** cover the packaging of:
8c8,10
< This policy does not cover the packaging of tools that provide access to third-party software that is separate from the installation of Fedora packages. Language-specific tools (`pip`, `maven`, `cargo`, `go`, …), systems that implement access to third-party packaged software (`steam`, `snap`, `apt`, `pacman`, `appstream`, `flatpak`, `dnf` invoked with package URLs, …), and tools that provide images of other systems (`docker`, `podman`, `machinectl`, …) are **not covered** by this document.
---
> * Language-specific tools (`pip`, `maven`, `cargo`, `go`, …).
> * Systems that implement access to third-party packaged software (`steam`, `snap`, `apt`, `pacman`, `appstream`, `flatpak`, `dnf` invoked with package URLs, …).
> * Tools that provide images of other systems (`docker`, `podman`, `machinectl`, …).
10,12c12,14
< The policy aims to make a wide range of software available to Fedora users similarly to native packages,
< while ensuring that that software is clearly labeled,
< so users are fully informed about the origin of the software that they are installing.
---
> Typically, these tools and systems can use third party repositories without the restrictions described in this document.
> 
> This policy scope is intended to ensure quality and legal protections for the most critical and visible software mechanisms used by Fedora, while allowing special-purpose software management tools to function as expected. The policy also aims to ensure that software provided under its terms is clearly labeled, so users are fully informed about the origin of the software that they are installing.
21,23c23
< Traditionally, definitions for multiple repositories were sometimes
< combined into one package, but this is discouraged and should not be done in new cases
< (as an example, Fedora Workstation edition installs a package called `fedora-workstation-repositories`).
---
> Traditionally, definitions for multiple repositories were combined into one package (for example, Fedora Workstation edition installs a package called `fedora-workstation-repositories`), but this is discouraged and should not be done in new cases.
25c25
< If they fulfill the requirements set out in this policy, the Fedora edition or spin install media can include third party repository definitions.
---
> If they fulfill the requirements set out in this policy, an Fedora edition or spin install media can include third party repository definitions.
29,31d28
< Repositories may have the `enabled_metadata=1` (or equivalent) setting,
< so users can view the contents of the repository without enabling them explicitly.
< 
35a33,35
> Repositories can be configured with either `enabled_metadata=0` or `enabled_metadata=1` (or equivalent),
> at the discretion of the relevant working group or SIG.
> 
83d82
< 

Having gone through the policy again, two observations:

First, I still find the gnome-software criteria a bit problematic. For one, gnome-software integrates with fwupd, which uses the Linux Vendor Firmware Service, which I think would fall down on the requirement that: "third-party repositories should limit themselves to a small number of packages, or that measures should be put in place to define which packages are made available from a particular repository by default". I think we want to be able to enable firmware updates by default!

Second, the list of types of software that aren't covered by the policy includes "systems that implement access to third-party packaged software". It sounds like it's saying that the third party repo policy doesn't apply to tools that use third party repos, which is obviously contradictory. I'm not sure that this bit is actually necessary - if we say that language-specific tools and tools that provide images are out of scope, that seems sufficient?

First, I still find the gnome-software criteria a bit problematic. For one, gnome-software integrates with fwupd, which uses the Linux Vendor Firmware Service, which I think would fall down on the requirement that: "third-party repositories should limit themselves to a small number of packages, or that measures should be put in place to define which packages are made available from a particular repository by default". I think we want to be able to enable firmware updates by default!

Indeed it does! To satisfy this policy, those firmware updates need to either be explicitly enabled or we must approve them to be enabled automatically. It is possible that such approval has already happened when this was initially introduced.

Second, the list of types of software that aren't covered by the policy includes "systems that implement access to third-party packaged software". It sounds like it's saying that the third party repo policy doesn't apply to tools that use third party repos, which is obviously contradictory. I'm not sure that this bit is actually necessary - if we say that language-specific tools and tools that provide images are out of scope, that seems sufficient?

I think tools like steam do not qualify as either language-specific tools and tools that provide images, so we need a separate category for those. But you are right that this wording is unfortunate. I'll try revise it.

Updated again. I think this is incrementally better than the previous versions, but please review again.

First, I still find the gnome-software criteria a bit problematic. For one, gnome-software integrates with fwupd, which uses the Linux Vendor Firmware Service ...

Indeed it does! To satisfy this policy, those firmware updates need to either be explicitly enabled or we must approve them to be enabled automatically. It is possible that such approval has already happened when this was initially introduced.

Second, the list of types of software that aren't covered by the policy includes "systems that implement access to third-party packaged software". It sounds like it's saying that the third party repo policy doesn't apply to tools that use third party repos ...

I think tools like steam do not qualify as either language-specific tools and tools that provide images, so we need a separate category for those.

Isn't the steam itself provided by a 3rd party rpm repo? Is the policy expected to act recursively?

But you are right that this wording is unfortunate. I'll try revise it.

Two potential alternatives to consider:

1. State that the policy only applies to tools and repos that are pre-installed. That would cover dnf and flatpak, but would exclude the likes of apt, pacman, steam and snap.
2. Just say that the policy only applies to dnf, flatpak and maybe snap.

Both of these probably are closer to the original intent of the policy (historically people have mostly seemed to care about proprietary desktop apps popping up in a way that's assisted by Fedora). They both have the disadvantage that they are somewhat unfair, in that they aren't treating all software management tools equally, and are putting our default tools at an disadvantage, but maybe that was the case all along.

Updated again. I think this is incrementally better than the previous versions, but please review again.

Thanks, it looks good from a style perspective. The only thing I'd do is move one sentence:

17a18,20
> If they fulfil the requirements set out in this policy,
> a Fedora edition or spin install media can include third party repository definitions.
> 
22,24d24
< 
< If they fulfill the requirements set out in this policy,
< a Fedora edition or spin install media can include third party repository definitions.

Thanks, it looks good from a style perspective. The only thing I'd do is move one sentence:

Done.

1. State that the policy only applies to tools and repos that are pre-installed. That would cover dnf and flatpak, but would exclude the likes of apt, pacman, steam and snap.
2. Just say that the policy only applies to dnf, flatpak and maybe snap.

I don't like this: if I install dnfdragora on my initially workstation machine, I think the rules should be the same as if I got it by installing from the KDE spin. Also, I don't want to include an explicit list of tools. We currently have quite a few, and the list is likely to change over time. (For example, what does Sugar, Pantheon, Deepin use?).

Isn't the steam itself provided by a 3rd party rpm repo?

Indeed. I removed Steam from the list.

1. State that the policy only applies to tools and repos that are pre-installed. That would cover dnf and flatpak, but would exclude the likes of apt, pacman, steam and snap.
2. Just say that the policy only applies to dnf, flatpak and maybe snap.

I don't like this: if I install dnfdragora on my initially workstation machine, I think the rules should be the same as if I got it by installing from the KDE spin.

I can see the logic in that.

Also, I don't want to include an explicit list of tools. We currently have quite a few, and the list is likely to change over time. (For example, what does Sugar, Pantheon, Deepin use?).

I was imagining that the explicit list would just be dnf, flatpak, snap - the back-ends we care about, rather than the front-ends. (I agree that a long, dynamic list wouldn't be practical.) Of course, for that to work, we'd need to be confident that that list really does cover everything that the Fedora project cares about...

RPM repository, we do technically have multiple tools that can consume RPM repositories...

I was imagining that the explicit list would just be dnf, flatpak, snap - the back-ends we care about, rather than the front-ends.

Sorry, I still think that a list is unnecessary and we'd have troubling keeping it up to date.

RPM repository

Let's not split hairs. If you have a clearly better wording, please suggest a diff. But if it's just a bit better, or covers a theoretical corner case, or whatever, please don't. I don't want this to go on for another year.

@zbyszek Seriously? We have DNF, PackageKit, Zypper, and in the past, YUM that work with Fedora package repositories. Calling it an "RPM repository" is way more accurate than calling it a "DNF repository".

@zbyszek I think I'm with @ngompa on this one. Best not to lock ourselves to DNF (who knows, DNF 5 could just decide to rebrand as YUM 5 for the hell of it.)

Okey, okey, I miscontrued what you wanted to change (pagure does not show context). I agree that "RPM repository" is better than "DNF repository". I'll push that one change shortly.

Looks great! :thumbsup:

No major objection to the current draft, based on the fact that it does everything the Workstation Working Group needs it to.

That said, I continue to struggle with this bit:

this policy does **not** cover the packaging of:
...
* Tools that provide access to other software packaging ecosystems (`snap`, `apt`, `pacman`, `appstream`, `flatpak`, `dnf` invoked with package URLs, …).

It isn't clear what it's trying to say. Any tool can provide access to other packaging ecosystems, can't it? If you read it literally it seems to imply that any package manager is exempt from the policy.

Perhaps this part means to refer to "tools which primarily exist to serve external ecosystems". However, in that case, the inclusion of appstream, flatpak and dnf in the examples don't make sense to me:

• Isn't appstream just about the metadata?
• flatpak is repo-agnostic by design, and Fedora has its own flatpaks, so I don't think you can claim that it is particularly focused on an external ecosystem
• "dnf invoked with package URLs" - this policy is about which repos can be provided by Fedora, not what users can do with software management tools once we've given them to them

So, if I'm understanding the intent correctly, you could possible replace line 8 with:

* Tools that primarily exist to access external software packaging ecosystems (`snap`, `apt`, `pacman`, …).

So, if I'm understanding the intent correctly, you could possible replace line 8 with:

• Tools that primarily exist to access external software packaging ecosystems (snap, apt, pacman, …).

OK, I can change to that. I don't think it matters much either way, but I'm happy to change if you find that better.

I see this mangled in the HTML output, presumably by a missing newline.

rebased onto 2b9360c 2 minutes ago

Oh, pagure, I didn't rebase anything. Don't make up stuff.

Approved in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2416#comment-677206.