[Spice-devel] [spice-gtk v1 00/10] Flatpak + CI

[Christophe Fergeau]

Hey,

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:51:54PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:12 PM Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I think the main objection is with making spicy too easy to install (and
> > to upgrade). Once we ask someone to test a spicy flatpak and it works
> > for them, we don't want them to stick to it, start requesting for
> > flathub availability so that it gets regularly updated, and for this one
> > small feature that would make spicy a perfect fit for them (which is why
> > in the first place Marc-André has been trying to discourage use of
> > spicy).
> >
> 
> Indeed. So far it is there as an "example":
> 
> commit 64a0eeab8ddd2ca6b2d3b57b7f46e99877bfab7e
> Author: Pavel Grunt <pgrunt at redhat.com>
> Date:   Fri Jul 21 11:02:57 2017 +0200
> 
>     Add flatpak builder manifest file for spicy
> 
>     To give an example for creating flatpaks depending on spice-gtk
> 
> 
> Tbh, I think we should remove the flatpak from spice-gtk source tree.
> It doesn't make much sense to have it included imho, unless we have a
> good reason to build it on a regular basis, which imho is not
> something we need as a library or even a testing client.

Is there a repository of flatpak build snippets these days? If not, I
think it can be useful to document a canonical way of building spice-gtk
in a flatpak, rather than having every application build spice-gtk in
its own way.

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20190212/5e1ab646/attachment.sig>