Learn more about these different git repos.
Other Git URLs
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Graphical_Applications_as_Flatpaks
At this point:
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
Metadata Update from @mohanboddu: - Issue tagged with: change-ack
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
@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:
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.
@mohanboddu reports that we still working on making bodhi support Flatpaks. This work is in staging and being tested.
@mohanboddu tested bodhi on Nov 5 and an issue was found with bodhi that @bowlofeggs has already fixed. The fix has to be deployed, which will complete in a week.
@mohanboddu, is this fixed? @otaylor, are you happy?
From our grooming discussion on #fedora-releng channel on Apr 12 2019
proposal: done, close
Metadata Update from @mohanboddu: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.