• @non_burglar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    6510 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.

    • John
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This comment should be deleted soon

      • @GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        2410 months ago

        That honestly doesn’t sound like a bad mission, but it seems like there’s a couple other requirements they should impose on their mission and then there wouldn’t be any controversy.

        They should require that their package works as well as the upstream, and, in the even that it doesn’t, they need to be very blatant and open that this is a downstream package, and support for it will only be provided by Fedora Flatpaks, and that you may have better results with the official packages.

        The primary issues in this case is that it doesn’t work, and it’s not been clear to users who to ask for help.

    • @just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -2010 months ago

      I’m sorry, but you’ve completely missed either the point, or how it works.

      Flathub is really the problem here for not properly verifying package owners/maintainers and allowing them to moderate other versions of their work.

      There honestly just needs to finally be a way to sort official packages from community packages. Right now it’s a mess. Fedora should just take theirs down.