3 ms·

The package was already updated before this post was made: https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/obs-studio/history/container.yaml?identifier=stable https://s

by gbraad 2y ago

The package was already updated before this post was made: https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/obs-studio/history/container.yaml?identifier=stable https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/obs-studio/history/co... which reads: ``` end-of-life: The Fedora Flatpak build of obs-studio may have limited functionality compared to other sources. Please do not report bugs to the OBS Studio project about this build. ```

gbraad 2y ago
Honestly, the flatpak should be made on only published by the project maintainers; I do not understand why someone still puts efforts into a Fedora-based flatpak to publish the application. Who understand better how the application works? I had this discussion with several packagers on the project, and they insist on their work. I do not understand why a Debian or Fedora packager would know better how to do this. It is a container/userspace abstraction, not distro specific. I understand there is a use case for Silverblue (and derivs), ... though this is duplication; an upstream exists with a possibility for extensions/plugins, that this doesn't. It does not take away that this feels pretty unnecessarily hostile, as Neal already informed him to work with the packager to resolve this: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586. It is not clear if the reporter actually ever did.
- thomasfortes 2y ago
  One of the comments in the main thread says that the original vision for the fedora flatpaks was to be mainly for things that fedora wanted to have tight control and be preinstalled in their distros (Firefox, LibreOffice, GNOME and apps, etc...), which makes a lot of sense, but at some point it lost their original vision and started packaging everything under the sun. In another comment someone says that most of the extra packages are maintained by a single person (more than 700), there's no way a single person can validate and test all these packages (or even use them).
  - gbraad 2y ago
    Not sure where you saw this, as that was also my argument why Flatpak gave "application developers are in control of the release cycle" again instead of this being the packager; they can't perform the same quality control. They should never package what rpmfusion offers, or distribute a new flatpak when something is already available. That worked when flathub didn't exist or was mostly empty, but that time is gone now. Note: I want to understand what led to the comment of the C&D-like legal threat.
    - thomasfortes 2y ago
      Hey, here they are :) Original vision https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-954066 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95406... Person with more than 700 packages https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-955418 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... As for the C&D, the github has some issues with Fedora distros and labeled as "Dependency issues" and there's no indication if the user is using the fedora flatpak or the flathub one, so if I had to guess I would guess that they aren't that happy with: 1. Being asked to fix bugs introduced by downstream. 2. Having their brand damaged because it isn't clear that the fedora flatpak is a way more limited version than the verified one. 3. Having their issues with their complaints minimized and ignored by the people responsible for the fedora flatpak system.
      - adamwill 2y ago
        The thing about complaints being "minimized and ignored" really isn't true. There is a gigantic thread that's a direct response to their complaints: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463 yes, it recently got unfortunately heated with the whole "whose idea about what to do with Qt is better" argument, but the whole way through that ticket - which was filed 23 days ago, and has had active discussion going that whole time, including being the main topic at multiple workstation WG meetings - it's been pretty clear that the outcome is likely to involve Fedora flatpaks being demoted. The very first post is a proposal - by a key member of the workstation WG - to move flathub ahead of Fedora flatpaks in the precedence order. Consistently through the discussion, catanzaro and other workstation WG members have been supporting that idea, with a lot of discussion and argument about the details, as you always get in F/OSS projects. we do all the sausage factory stuff in the open, that's the point.
- JavierFlores09 2y ago
  > It does not take away that this feels pretty unnecessarily hostile, as Neal already informed him to work with the packager to resolve this: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586. It is not clear if the reporter actually ever did. Just providing context here, this is what one of the OBS maintainers said in Brodie Robertson's video [1] about this issue: > Hi, Joel from OBS here, thanks for the coverage! I can confirm that we absolutely did not want to have to resort to this, but did not feel that they were taking the concerns seriously, and when they resorted to calling us "terrible maintainers" we felt they made their position clear. I'd like to also let folks know that Neal Gompa (who opened the request to remove the Flatpak in addition to ours) manages the RPM, and we do not, and have not, ever had any issues with the RPM which is packaged properly. With that in context, I'd like to believe while still a bit hostile, it was necessary since they really didn't care about what's being asked here. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM

by gbraad 2y ago

gbraad 2y ago

Honestly, the flatpak should be made on only published by the project maintainers; I do not understand why someone still puts efforts into a Fedora-based flatpak to publish the application. Who understand better how the application works? I had this discussion with several packagers on the project, and they insist on their work. I do not understand why a Debian or Fedora packager would know better how to do this. It is a container/userspace abstraction, not distro specific. I understand there is a use case for Silverblue (and derivs), ... though this is duplication; an upstream exists with a possibility for extensions/plugins, that this doesn't. It does not take away that this feels pretty unnecessarily hostile, as Neal already informed him to work with the packager to resolve this: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586. It is not clear if the reporter actually ever did.

thomasfortes 2y ago
One of the comments in the main thread says that the original vision for the fedora flatpaks was to be mainly for things that fedora wanted to have tight control and be preinstalled in their distros (Firefox, LibreOffice, GNOME and apps, etc...), which makes a lot of sense, but at some point it lost their original vision and started packaging everything under the sun. In another comment someone says that most of the extra packages are maintained by a single person (more than 700), there's no way a single person can validate and test all these packages (or even use them).
- gbraad 2y ago
  Not sure where you saw this, as that was also my argument why Flatpak gave "application developers are in control of the release cycle" again instead of this being the packager; they can't perform the same quality control. They should never package what rpmfusion offers, or distribute a new flatpak when something is already available. That worked when flathub didn't exist or was mostly empty, but that time is gone now. Note: I want to understand what led to the comment of the C&D-like legal threat.
  - thomasfortes 2y ago
    Hey, here they are :) Original vision https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-954066 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95406... Person with more than 700 packages https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-955418 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... As for the C&D, the github has some issues with Fedora distros and labeled as "Dependency issues" and there's no indication if the user is using the fedora flatpak or the flathub one, so if I had to guess I would guess that they aren't that happy with: 1. Being asked to fix bugs introduced by downstream. 2. Having their brand damaged because it isn't clear that the fedora flatpak is a way more limited version than the verified one. 3. Having their issues with their complaints minimized and ignored by the people responsible for the fedora flatpak system.
    - adamwill 2y ago
      The thing about complaints being "minimized and ignored" really isn't true. There is a gigantic thread that's a direct response to their complaints: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463 yes, it recently got unfortunately heated with the whole "whose idea about what to do with Qt is better" argument, but the whole way through that ticket - which was filed 23 days ago, and has had active discussion going that whole time, including being the main topic at multiple workstation WG meetings - it's been pretty clear that the outcome is likely to involve Fedora flatpaks being demoted. The very first post is a proposal - by a key member of the workstation WG - to move flathub ahead of Fedora flatpaks in the precedence order. Consistently through the discussion, catanzaro and other workstation WG members have been supporting that idea, with a lot of discussion and argument about the details, as you always get in F/OSS projects. we do all the sausage factory stuff in the open, that's the point.
JavierFlores09 2y ago
> It does not take away that this feels pretty unnecessarily hostile, as Neal already informed him to work with the packager to resolve this: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586. It is not clear if the reporter actually ever did. Just providing context here, this is what one of the OBS maintainers said in Brodie Robertson's video [1] about this issue: > Hi, Joel from OBS here, thanks for the coverage! I can confirm that we absolutely did not want to have to resort to this, but did not feel that they were taking the concerns seriously, and when they resorted to calling us "terrible maintainers" we felt they made their position clear. I'd like to also let folks know that Neal Gompa (who opened the request to remove the Flatpak in addition to ours) manages the RPM, and we do not, and have not, ever had any issues with the RPM which is packaged properly. With that in context, I'd like to believe while still a bit hostile, it was necessary since they really didn't care about what's being asked here. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM