#6876 Please review the Graphical Applications as Flatpaks change proposal
Opened a year ago by otaylor. Modified a month ago

See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Graphical_Applications_as_Flatpaks

At this point:

  • No extra deliverables for releases are expected
  • The existing deliverables are not modified

The goal is to keep Flatpaks and server containers very much in sync and going through the same code paths, so as releng processes are adapted to deal with applications and modules that are independent of the major Fedora release schedule the same work will handle both types of containerized content.

Unless self-service ways to create dist-git repositories in modules/ and containers/ or the suggestion of "self-contained applications" with rpm+module+container directly in rpms/ is suggested, there may be a considerable increase in the number of requests to create modules and containers, since we eventually expect many hundreds of flatpaks within Fedora. We'll try to keep the number small until we feel the file formats and tools are sufficiently mature.


Metadata Update from @ausil:
- Issue tagged with: changes, f27

a year ago

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:
- Issue tagged with: change-ack

a year ago

Releng acks the Flatpak work. It will require lots of tooling work which may have been developed as part of modular support. We need to work with the tool maintainers to enable shipping Flatpaks through the releng pipeline.

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

8 months ago

@mohanboddu reports that @cverna is working on the development part. Once he finishes, Releng needs to update the configs.

@cverna , when do you expect to complete your part? Please advise.

Together with @otaylor we have successfully built a Flatpak on the staging instance of OSBS. Before we can deploy this to production there are a few patches that needs to send upstream (OSBS).

@otaylor do you have a timeline for the OSBS patches needed for flatpak ? I am happy to help if needed.

Yes - the OSBS part got far enough to unblock a bunch of other things. I spent the last two weeks at GUADEC and using that time with other Flatpak contributors to the code in Flatpak that we'll need for GNOME Software to browse and install Flatpaks from the Fedora registry. (https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/pull/1910)

Switched back to the Fedora infrastructure bits this afternoon:

My task list at this point looks like:

  • The small OSBS changes cverna mentioned
  • Release new version of flatpak-module-tools with final Flatpak creation code, update Fedora packages
  • Make a patch to make atomic-reactor depend on flatpak-module-tools, file PR for that
  • Test bodhi flatpak support I wrote, file PR
  • Finish regindexer (service to listen on fedmsg, create a registry index with a simple python script), package in Fedora, file Fedora infrastructure tickets.

Those are mostly pretty easy ( though it would be easier to do the OSBS work with a real test instance, and setting that again is not easy.) I'll be trying to get through the list this week, or at least before Flock.

Once all of that is merged, deployed, and pushed to production, that should count as working Flatpaks in the Fedora build system :-)

@otaylor , thanks for the update. Please talk to @mohanboddu at FLOCK next week.

We're going to have an all-day hackfest on Friday - https://flock2018.sched.com/event/Fjdg/building-flatpaks-from-fedora-packages - I hope that @mohanboddu can drop in for a bit (we'll start with an intro and general discussion.)

@mohanboddu reports that work on this ticket is on-going.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata