40 ms·

Meh. Seems like there's some unstated background context here. The proximate cause isn't the linked bug at OBS, it's this bug report to Fedora: https://pagur

by ajross 2y ago

Meh. Seems like there's some unstated background context here. The proximate cause isn't the linked bug at OBS, it's this bug report to Fedora: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463 Basically it demands that the FlatPak be removed from the repository citing "problems" that aren't detailed. Then 22 days later they start throwing bombs on their own gitlab (again, without details about what the problems with the FlatPak) and get those posted to HN? Lots of steam, no meat. If this did go to a lawyer, the first question would be "Well, did you try to work with them?" Seemingly the answer is no. Or if it's "yes", it's somewhere back in the history of a pre-existing conflict. This isn't the first conflict between an upstream and a distro about packaging process and it won't be the last. By definition the feature we users want from the distros is that they are making opinionated choices about how to present the world of software to us.

nikitalita 2y ago
It seems that issues started here: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-955418 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... Basically, the discussion somehow got turned into berating the OBS team for relying on an EOL runtime (which, as they carefully explain, was due to regressions when upgrading). I assume that waiting three weeks for any sort of movement and then getting insults in return is what caused them to reach for the nuclear option.
- adamwill 2y ago
  The argument about Qt maintenance and the original topic are kinda orthogonal. Even in the same messages where he's criticizing obs upstream's handling of qt, mcatanzaro is still saying he wants to demote fedora flatpaks, which is what obs upstream wants - https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-955418 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... . the start of that comment is debating the Qt EOL thing. The end of the comment says "I agree with this argument. Fedora Flatpaks have had their chance but have not been successful. I'd say it's time to move on. Based on our discussion so far, I think Workstation Working Group does not want to tell Fedora developers to stop packaging things, but perhaps we can exclude the Fedora Flatpak repo from the default software sources and require that users enable it manually if they really want it."

by ajross 2y ago

nikitalita 2y ago

It seems that issues started here: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-955418 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... Basically, the discussion somehow got turned into berating the OBS team for relying on an EOL runtime (which, as they carefully explain, was due to regressions when upgrading). I assume that waiting three weeks for any sort of movement and then getting insults in return is what caused them to reach for the nuclear option.

adamwill 2y ago
The argument about Qt maintenance and the original topic are kinda orthogonal. Even in the same messages where he's criticizing obs upstream's handling of qt, mcatanzaro is still saying he wants to demote fedora flatpaks, which is what obs upstream wants - https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-955418 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... . the start of that comment is debating the Qt EOL thing. The end of the comment says "I agree with this argument. Fedora Flatpaks have had their chance but have not been successful. I'd say it's time to move on. Based on our discussion so far, I think Workstation Working Group does not want to tell Fedora developers to stop packaging things, but perhaps we can exclude the Fedora Flatpak repo from the default software sources and require that users enable it manually if they really want it."