Change: FilterFedoraFlatpaksAtomicDesktopsv2 #3549
Labels
No labels
document it
fast track
meeting
next release
nonresponsive maintainer
packager revocation
pending announcement
provenpackager
python 2 exception
self contained change
stalled
Status
Accepted
Status
Duplicate
Status
Insufficient data
Status
Invalid
Status
Rejected
system wide change
updates policy exception
vote-in-progress
No milestone
No project
No assignees
8 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
fesco/tickets#3549
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Allow image based Fedora Desktop outputs (and only those), to self-determine if they want to make use of filters on the Fedora flatpak repository for pre-installed Fedora Flatpaks and enable FlatHub by default. If output maintainers choose to enable Flathub by default, they must use flatpak filters to ensure the the Fedora Flatpak remote is used for all pre-installed user applications (the ones pre-installed from the ISO and the runtimes).
Owners, do not implement this work until the FESCo vote has explicitly ended.
The Fedora Program Manager will create a tracking bug in Bugzilla for this Change, which is your indication to proceed. See the FESCo ticket policy and the Changes policy for more information.
REMINDER: This ticket is for FESCo members to vote on the proposal. Further discussion should happen in the Discourse discussion linked above. Additional discussion may happen on the Fedora Devel mailing list.
Apologies, this FESCo issue was created too early. There is still conversation ongoing in the Discourse discussion.
Discussion: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/179470
Please hold off on voting until the discussion is complete.
Metadata Update from @alking:
This topic is still ongoing on Fedora Discussions. Let's defer the FESCo decision until that cools off.
We have the "incomplete changes" ticket on the agenda for today, which probably is going to take forever as always, so I'm not including this on the agenda. But FESCo members need to catch up on the discussion if they haven't already. We should plan for having this on the agenda for the subsequent meeting.
Let's do that.
Metadata Update from @decathorpe:
This was discussed during today's meeting (meeting log starting at 18:13:55). Voting was moved to next week to give people more time to catch up on discussion and / or ask more questions / get more answers.
I've made material changes to the text of the change proposal based integrating discussion feedback intended to clarify intention.
The proposal now reads explicitly as intended to make it possible to enable the verified floss subset of FlatHub by default.
There is additional text in the scope section that provides discussion of a middle ground fallback scenario that allows the filter to be used and treats both full fedora and full flathub flatpaks as peer user enablable remotes. The fallback scenario allows room for the question of the default enablement of verified floss subset to be addressed as a separate policy question while allowing the filter to be implemented.
This was discussed during today's meeting:
see meeting log, starting at 18:09: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2026-03-03/fesco.2026-03-03-18.03.log.html
I posted a summary of discussion in https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/summary-of-the-discussion-about-filter-fedora-flatpaks-atomic-desktops-v2-proposal/182878.
I really don't want to ... erm, "discuss" this in a meeting again, so I'll just leave my -1 vote here in-ticket.
I'm done "discussing" this too. I feel like it doesn't matter what we say, it's not having a meaningful effect to the Change owner.
-1
Absentee ballot for -1 here too
As noted in the summary discussion, in my opinion this is nowhere near ready
Also we kept being told we are holding this up and yet clearly there is no consensus or any demonstrated improvement if this proposal is adopted...
At the 2026-03-17 FESCo meeting, this Change was APPROVED (+5, 0, -3)
FESCo also reminds the Change owners that this approval covers Atomic deliverables only and that other deliverables will need to be discussed separately.
Metadata Update from @sgallagh:
Just as a note: the change as set now is a fedora 44 change. Did we really intend for this to land now? If so, it really would need to hurry before final freeze.
No. This needs to shift to Fedora 45.
@alking can you move this to f45?
It was accepted under f44, but I don't think that should be the case now.
This Change has been deferred from F44 to F45.
Note: The milestone on this issue reflects when FESCo originally reviewed this Change and is preserved as historical record.