What exactly is wrong with Fedora's OBS? [LWN.net]

What exactly is wrong with Fedora's OBS?

Posted Mar 2, 2025 13:14 UTC (Sun) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
Parent article: Fedora discusses Flatpak priorities

This is another article I see about beef OBS has with Fedora , and this glances over specifics, too.
What are the problems with Fedora package/flatpak? The one linked bug, about H264 encoder, lacks and troubleshooting investigation. It is not proved Fedora package is at fault, just a handwaving.
I did not see any other BZ ticket or issue clearly stating what's wrong with Fedora packaging (if anything!). And this should be the first step to resolve the situation.
Nevertheless, this raises the question: certainly, there are differences between upstream flatpak and Fedora's. If there were none, there would be no need for Fedora package. So what are those differences, are they important, are they faulty?

What exactly is wrong with Fedora's OBS?

Posted Mar 2, 2025 17:41 UTC (Sun) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link]

and this glances over specifics, too

I tried to include the specifics as much as possible—but they are in short supply. There was no BZ to refer to. Upstream doesn't want to fiddle with filing bugs against Fedora's packaging anyway—they just want users to get what they've produced directly.

I think they did display that the Fedora Flatpak had issues that were not reproduced in the upstream version. The other issue—perhaps this wasn't emphasized strongly enough—is the confusion over which Flatpak users were running and that the Fedora version was prioritized over the upstream one. IMO that's a legitimate concern. There's still some room for improvement in the way software is delivered to users in Workstation to make it abundantly clear if the package is from Fedora, if it's a Flatpak or RPM, or if it's a Flatpak from Flathub that's verified. The only reason I know the difference when installing software is because I've paid attention and written about it. At first glance, it wouldn't be obvious to me—and I expect that's true of others.

certainly, there are differences between upstream flatpak and Fedora's. If there were none, there would be no need for Fedora package

I think that's also part of the question/problem. It seems like a lot of Fedora Flatpaks may just be RPMs that are scooped up into the Flatpak format and they don't receive the same amount of testing. Maybe Fedora's Flatpak SIG feels it needs to provide a wide range of software for Silverblue, etc. and could step back and reconsider some packages if they are available via Flathub? Dunno.