[Discussion] Handling flatpaks and value added content from flathub #46

New Issue

label · 2024-12-04T12:12:43Z

label commented

2024-12-04 12:12:43 +00:00

There are three packages coming to CentOS Stream 10 soon:

*-flatpak-repo
*-flatpak-preinstall-firefox
*-flatpak-preinstall-thunderbird

We want to provide the equivalent of this (using "rocky" as the name, similar to lorax-templates-rocky, among others).

Essentially, we need:

A place where our flatpak packages can exist (oci+... repo)
Peridot needs support of building flatpak packages
Determine if we want to add flathub.org as a default repo in rocky-flatpak-repo

Flatpak location

We need to determine how and where we want to setup this repository. As far as I can tell, these are simple OCI container stores with the application in them. At first glance, it doesn't seem any more complicated than this.

Peridot support for flatpak packages

On the surface, it appears rpm's are made by normal means, but then these RPM's are then taken and placed into tar files in a way that they contain a manifest and metadata to be used in a flatpak repo. It's not exactly clear how this mechanism works yet, but peridot would need to support this in some manner.

Adding flathub as a default repo

We have the opportunity to add the flathub as a default repo for flatpaks if we so choose. However, we need to weigh the pros and cons of this. The initial ones I can think of are:

Pros:

User can use the gnome software center immediately and get flatpaks installed if they wish (assuming a browser isn't available)
?

Cons:

This could confuse a user as the gnome software center will show both flatpaks and regular packages.
?

There are three packages coming to CentOS Stream 10 soon: * *-flatpak-repo * *-flatpak-preinstall-firefox * *-flatpak-preinstall-thunderbird We want to provide the equivalent of this (using "rocky" as the name, similar to lorax-templates-rocky, among others). Essentially, we need: * A place where our flatpak packages can exist (oci+... repo) * Peridot needs support of building flatpak packages * Determine if we want to add flathub.org as a default repo in rocky-flatpak-repo ### Flatpak location We need to determine how and where we want to setup this repository. As far as I can tell, these are simple OCI container stores with the application in them. At first glance, it doesn't seem any more complicated than this. ### Peridot support for flatpak packages On the surface, it appears rpm's are made by normal means, but then these RPM's are then taken and placed into tar files in a way that they contain a manifest and metadata to be used in a flatpak repo. It's not exactly clear how this mechanism works yet, but peridot would need to support this in some manner. ### Adding flathub as a default repo We have the opportunity to add the flathub as a default repo for flatpaks if we so choose. However, we need to weigh the pros and cons of this. The initial ones I can think of are: Pros: * User can use the gnome software center immediately and get flatpaks installed if they wish (assuming a browser isn't available) * ? Cons: * This could confuse a user as the gnome software center will show both flatpaks *and* regular packages. * ?

Sign in to join this conversation.