If there's one thing you can always count on in the Linux world it's that packaging can be a nightmare. The OBS Studio team are not happy with the Fedora folks due to Flatpak problems and threatened legal action.
  • non_burglar@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 months ago

    The issue is that they are pushing their own version of flatpaks, some of which are broken, instead of contributing to flat hub and making that the default.

  • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Is there any merit to the claim OBS is using an end-of-life (EOL) runtime and that this is a very bad thing for security?

    • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      It doesn’t mean they are pushing flatpaks, but rather for whatever reason they decided to package their own flatpaks.

      Flatpak can support different repos, so of course fedora can host its own. The strange bit is why bother repackaging and hosting software that is already packaged by the project itself on flathub?

      One argument might me the security risk of poorly packaged flatpaks relying on eol of dependencies. Fedora may feel it is better to have a version that it packages in line with what it packages in its own repos?

      I have some sympathy for that position. But it makes sense that it is annoying OBS when it is causing confusion if its a broken or poorly built repackags, and worse it sounds like things got very petty fast. I think OBS’s request that fedora flag this up as being different from the flathub version wasn’t unreasonable - but not sure what went down for it to get to thepoint of threatening legal action under misuse of the branding.

      Fedora probably should make it clearer to its users what the Fedora Flatpak repo is for.