Yeah, this is definitely *not* the way to go. It's a bad idea to teach Flatpak itself about a concept which is *deliberately* temporary and not upstream anywhere. It's not upstream for a reason. This isn't like Nvidia who make a point of never having a stable UABI ever.
I would NAK such a change in Flatpak (for whatever that's worth) and would not ship this solution in our distro, it's policy-wise absolutely the way to go. Shipping extensions in the downstream distro, which already ships the unstable Mesa and can control release cadence makes a lot more sense.
An example of how this breaks down: sometimes there are kernel *bugfixes* that are required for a new Mesa driver to work, but do not break the UABI or increment the version. We are in the process of releasing one such Mesa fix right now, after we just released the kernel it requires. Flatpak cannot control for such dependencies related to bug fixes, potentially breaking everyone whose distro still has an older kernel.
Hector Martin /
npub1qk…9azpx
2024-07-15 21:08:39
in reply to nevent1q…hv6j
Author Public Key
npub1qk9x6yrvten3jqyvundn7exggm90fxf9yfarj5eaz25yd7aty8hqe9azpxPublished at
2024-07-15 21:08:39Event JSON
{
"id": "5063f2f87361d47b6b39103d29e0101356626e360637c0649bb5809eb93b751b",
"pubkey": "058a6d106c5e6719008ce4db3f64c846caf49925227a39533d12a846fbab21ee",
"created_at": 1721077719,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"61143037d00b587873cac89501f9e7a49168e63ad413a72ca07aff15c5f7ebba",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://social.treehouse.systems/@marcan/112792549401105411",
"web"
],
[
"p",
"fd9918a494c2db8ba3c474c86f80b06b4584de11fa869b1ac5fdd3b48d6c823b"
],
[
"p",
"a08cc6e528d8436fc82c1eb67c73c14599ed63dd534c6f86ef17a270195f06ae"
],
[
"p",
"6e15b38c189b0b584d413ab5ab5b1bf05487ffe114895aebfe419bf84c7b02a9"
],
[
"p",
"b9176c5986007dcb28c2edbc9018d746166816462e3b9d0e2a22eed58424f1e0"
],
[
"e",
"1d2724cf978b7bc3c64dbb7fac9e40dd04c24cccd2dbb0fe7b021595edb0b5dd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://social.treehouse.systems/users/marcan/statuses/112792549401105411",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://social.treehouse.systems/users/marcan/statuses/112792549401105411",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "Yeah, this is definitely *not* the way to go. It's a bad idea to teach Flatpak itself about a concept which is *deliberately* temporary and not upstream anywhere. It's not upstream for a reason. This isn't like Nvidia who make a point of never having a stable UABI ever.\n\nI would NAK such a change in Flatpak (for whatever that's worth) and would not ship this solution in our distro, it's policy-wise absolutely the way to go. Shipping extensions in the downstream distro, which already ships the unstable Mesa and can control release cadence makes a lot more sense.\n\nAn example of how this breaks down: sometimes there are kernel *bugfixes* that are required for a new Mesa driver to work, but do not break the UABI or increment the version. We are in the process of releasing one such Mesa fix right now, after we just released the kernel it requires. Flatpak cannot control for such dependencies related to bug fixes, potentially breaking everyone whose distro still has an older kernel.",
"sig": "1ba81d426390b1b68b1d281de3541c9f47f7d7ca9cb2ffe4e3c67d8b33abe9d652784430dc9fb9c5e4ffd2e22b5f9eec0fb5b0bd19e3c1b5c2e7cb3cee184f11"
}