4 ms·
Sure, as long as it's optional. I wasn't necessarily referring to self hosting your own infrastructure but simply to the notion that for most applications out t
by jillesvangurp 3y ago
Sure, as long as it's optional. I wasn't necessarily referring to self hosting your own infrastructure but simply to the notion that for most applications out there, building them is kind of a solved problem already and flatpak likely isn't the center of their universe but more like one of several things they need to support.
Offering some build infrastructure is nice but sounds like it would just end up competing with what is out there already. Unless you have a particularly novel/good take on that, you are basically just putting a lot of effort into cloning stuff that you can already get elsewhere for reasonable fee. Making the use of that mandatory vs. use your own and upload the binary is what the article is about. I think not supporting uploads is not really going to be a thing based on the discussion here.
I can't judge the wisdom of adding some optional build infrastructure. Maybe this all just boils down to some people needing an excuse to start doing this because they are interested in building such a thing. I'm not against that of course. Go for it. But it sounds like it would involve quite a bit of cost and infrastructure that isn't necessarily core to what flathub is about.