Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
> > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable.
> >
> On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's
> not a flatpak would be part of the image, and therefore unremovable?
> I've been looking at this issue recently from a slightly different
> perspective and wondered whether "part of the base OS" might be a
> simpler and more natural replacement for <mandatory_for_desktop>.

Seems to me that the whole problem is that gnome-software keeps the
"package" uninstallable even if the same application is installed via

Fix that, and you don't need to make any changes to the appdata files.

I'm thinking about a "pure" system that doesn't have any packages - it's just an ostree-based image with flatpaks installed on it. My understanding is that, in this situation, some apps would be shipped as part of the image, and that these apps wouldn't be removable.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]