>I’m not really sure who denies that Flatpak is a distribution, but I’m certainly not one of them. If anything, this seems to be a really good thing to me, beca

>I’m not really sure who denies that Flatpak is a distribution, but I’m certainly not one of them. If anything, this seems to be a really good thing to me, because we’re bundling a distribution and deploying it to users’ systems One difference between the "Flatpak distro" and traditional distros is that the latter's modularity improves accountability. For instance, if I encounter a bug with a Fedora or Red Hat RPM, I can file an issue in Red Hat Bugzilla for that component, each package has an owner whose job includes handle those bug reports just for that package and forward them upstream if necessary. If I wish, I can even install the corresponding debuginfo packages and step through a debugger myself. Since Flatpak runtimes are monoliths, every bug is a problem with the entire runtime. It's not clear who is responsible for what part. Is there a centralized bugtracker for each runtime? Also, compared to the "Flatpak distro" traditional distros have more clearly articulated maintenance policies. I know for how long a Fedora RPM or Ubuntu deb will get updates, and I trust the Ubuntu and Fedora maintainers to keep on top of the latest security patches. What level of maintenance does a Flatpak runtime receive?