`flatpak-builder` removed and a question on the Silverblue development process

I am currently on fedora:fedora/34/x86_64/testing/silverblue 34.20210330.0 to help with 34 beta testing and noticed that flatpak-builder was removed:

Upgraded:
  adcli 0.9.1-2.fc34 -> 0.9.1-3.fc34
  btrfs-progs 5.11-1.fc34 -> 5.11.1-1.fc34
  buildah 1.20.0-0.12.dev.git7f340f9.fc34 -> 1.20.0-1.fc34
  dracut 051-1.fc34.1 -> 053-1.fc34
  dracut-network 051-1.fc34.1 -> 053-1.fc34
  dracut-squash 051-1.fc34.1 -> 053-1.fc34
  gjs 1.68.0-3.fc34 -> 1.68.0-4.fc34
  gnome-control-center 40.0-1.fc34 -> 40.0-3.fc34
  gnome-control-center-filesystem 40.0-1.fc34 -> 40.0-3.fc34
  libgcrypt 1.9.2-1.fc34 -> 1.9.2-2.fc34
  libkcapi 1.2.0-3.fc34 -> 1.2.1-1.fc34
  libkcapi-hmaccalc 1.2.0-3.fc34 -> 1.2.1-1.fc34
  libudisks2 2.9.2-1.fc34 -> 2.9.2-2.fc34
  mesa-dri-drivers 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mesa-filesystem 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mesa-libEGL 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mesa-libGL 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mesa-libgbm 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mesa-libglapi 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mesa-libxatracker 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mesa-vulkan-drivers 21.0.1-1.fc34 -> 21.0.1-3.fc34
  mkpasswd 5.5.8-1.fc34 -> 5.5.9-1.fc34
  mutter 40.0-2.fc34 -> 40.0-3.fc34
  openssl-libs 1:1.1.1j-1.fc34 -> 1:1.1.1k-1.fc34
  rav1e-libs 0.4.0~alpha-0.3.fc34 -> 0.4.0-1.fc34
  udisks2 2.9.2-1.fc34 -> 2.9.2-2.fc34
  whois-nls 5.5.8-1.fc34 -> 5.5.9-1.fc34
  xorg-x11-drv-ati 19.1.0-3.fc34 -> 19.1.0-5.fc34
Removed:
  binutils-2.35.1-41.fc34.x86_64
  binutils-gold-2.35.1-41.fc34.x86_64
  breezy-3.1.0-2.fc34.x86_64
  ccache-4.2-1.fc34.x86_64
  ed-1.14.2-10.fc34.x86_64
  flatpak-builder-1.0.12-2.fc34.x86_64
  info-6.7-10.fc34.x86_64
  libserf-1.3.9-18.fc34.x86_64
  libsodium-1.0.18-7.fc34.x86_64
  lzip-1.22-2.fc34.x86_64
  patch-2.7.6-14.fc34.x86_64
  python3-bcrypt-3.1.7-7.fc34.x86_64
  python3-certifi-2020.12.5-2.fc34.noarch
  python3-cffi-1.14.5-1.fc34.x86_64
  python3-configobj-5.0.6-23.fc34.noarch
  python3-cryptography-3.4.6-1.fc34.x86_64
  python3-dulwich-0.20.18-1.fc34.x86_64
  python3-fastimport-0.9.8-12.fc34.noarch
  python3-httplib2-0.19.0-2.fc34.noarch
  python3-jeepney-0.6.0-2.fc34.noarch
  python3-jwt-1.7.1-11.fc34.noarch
  python3-jwt+crypto-1.7.1-11.fc34.noarch
  python3-keyring-21.8.0-2.fc34.noarch
  python3-launchpadlib-1.10.13-4.fc34.noarch
  python3-lazr-restfulclient-0.14.3-4.fc34.noarch
  python3-lazr-uri-1.0.5-3.fc34.noarch
  python3-oauthlib-3.0.2-9.fc34.noarch
  python3-oauthlib+signedtoken-3.0.2-9.fc34.noarch
  python3-paramiko-2.7.2-4.fc34.noarch
  python3-patiencediff-0.2.1-2.fc34.x86_64
  python3-pbr-5.5.1-2.fc34.noarch
  python3-ply-3.11-11.fc34.noarch
  python3-pyasn1-0.4.8-4.fc34.noarch
  python3-pycparser-2.20-3.fc34.noarch
  python3-pynacl-1.4.0-2.fc34.x86_64
  python3-pyparsing-2.4.7-5.fc34.noarch
  python3-secretstorage-3.2.0-3.fc34.noarch
  python3-testresources-2.0.1-2.fc34.noarch
  python3-wadllib-1.3.5-2.fc34.noarch
  subversion-1.14.1-1.fc34.x86_64
  subversion-libs-1.14.1-1.fc34.x86_64
  utf8proc-2.6.1-2.fc34.x86_64

While this isn’t the end of the world since toolbox exists, it is still annoying. I had to switch up my workflow in GNOME Builder and figure out the best way to implement the tool into the GUI again (which I’m still not completely sure of and have now just overlaid the package). This brought another question to my mind: How/Where exactly are these decisions made? Why is it not made clearer (perhaps I just completely missed it in the documentation/website, but I found nothing.)? How can the community submit their feedback, support, and ideas for these decisions? It’s not like flatpak-builder is a huge intertwining utility, and it is an important part of arguably the best flatpaked IDE. I understand that it is “testing” for a reason, and I am trying not to “complain”. More just want to better understand the development process of my favorite desktop operating system. :smiley:

1 Like

Hi Andrew -

This began as a discussion on the #fedora-desktop IRC channel on GIMP.net[1] - it was noted that Silverblue 34 gained a bunch of new Python libraries because of flatpak-builder => bzr => python-* depenency chains. So first it was discussed not making flatpak-builder pull in bzr. But then we questioned whether flatpak-builder should be there at all. In general, development tools should run in Toolbox, not on in host. We checked:

  • Does flatpak-builder work in a toolbox: it did, including --run
  • Does GNOME Builder installed as a Flatpak need flatpak-builder on the host. It did not.

For the second, Kalev tried running it with flatpak-builder removed, and we also had confirmation from the Builder author:

<hergertme> owen, yeah Builder bundles it’s own flatpak-builder inside the container

Given that, Kalev went ahead and filed pull requests:

But it sounds like somehow Builder does not work for you without flatpak-builder installed on the host. How are you setting things up? Are you just using the normal Flatpak support in Builder?

Thanks for the report!
Owen

[1] We know that it’s confusing to have both that channel and #fedora-workstation on FreeNode - see recent discussion Issue #218: The Workstation Working Group is a bottleneck - fedora-workstation - Pagure.io

I’m not sure exactly what happened, but I just tried clearing my config for builder… and it works now? Thanks for the info anyway. I had no clue GIMP.net even had active fedora channels until now. I do wish the development process was made slightly clearer, especially for possible brand-new contributors and users with no background working at RH or CoreOS etc.