Felicitas Pojtinger is in 🇪🇺Mar 17

Honestly the main value of BuildStream in my brain so far is that I can reasonably have all the sources for anything I could ever run on my system in one big folder to change and iterate on

Fixing something _anywhere_ in my stack, from the boot loader to the kernel to the shell to the browser can be done in one big swoop that turns into one or more upstreaming PRs

I wonder how Flatpaks could fit into this at some point. Would be neat to merge those two things in some way

Show threadValentin DavidMar 17
@pojntfx It is possible to build flatpaks with BuildStream. Because obviously this is what we do with Freedesktop SDK and the GNOME SDK. And we do have some test applications, not just runtime. The issue is that flathub infra does not expect it, unless you get an exception and they give you a token to upload directly. Maybe enough people donate to the GNOME Foundation and we can get an infra that can also do BuildStream in flathub.
Show threadFelicitas Pojtinger is in 🇪🇺Mar 17
@Valentin Ah okie, makes sense! Yeah it would be cool if on say GNOME OS I could also easily add another app on my fork of it that I'd like to run, but as a Flatpak not without the sandbox. Right now the two workflows (contributing to a GNOME app packaged as a Flatpak via the manifest & foundry/builder vs. other component (via bst and sysext) is super different which is a bit confusing
Show threadValentin DavidMar 17
@pojntfx Shipping Flatpaks along with the OS is still unsolved. At least in a nice way. But we do want that for core GNOME applications in GNOME. So maybe at some point we manage to make that work.
Show threadFelicitas Pojtinger is in 🇪🇺
@Valentin Makes sense, thank you for the explanation!
Mar 17 at 7:09pmIceCubesApp