OBS - Fedora fiasco
Posted on February 13, 2025 • 3 minutes • 537 words
The OBS Studio Flatpak Fiasco: A Packaging Problem
The open-source streaming software OBS Studio has found itself at the center of a packaging controversy within the Fedora Linux community. The OBS team recently requested the removal of their software from Fedora Flatpaks , citing issues with the unofficial package. Users, unaware they were using a Fedora-packaged Flatpak, were reporting bugs upstream, mistakenly believing they were using the official version. This has created a headache for the OBS developers.
Fedora’s policy prioritizes its own Flatpak repository over Flathub for desktop applications, a decision made by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) based on desktop application security concerns.
The priority order is: Fedora Flatpaks > RPM > Flathub. While security is a valid concern, Fedora’s Flatpak packaging process has been plagued with issues, often causing confusion and frustration for upstream maintainers like the OBS team. Users are frequently unaware they’re using a Fedora-packaged Flatpak, leading to misdirected bug reports and support requests.
The situation has escalated, with a detailed discussion unfolding in this Fedora Workstation issue . Key points of contention include:
- Fedora maintainers criticize the OBS team for not updating to the latest (their version is already EOL) Qt framework, citing this as justification for their own Flatpak packaging efforts and emphasizing their commitment to distro security.
- The OBS team counters that the latest Qt framework has known regressions and that they evaluate framework updates with each release cycle.
This situation raises a fundamental question: Who should be responsible for distro packaging?
Option 1: Upstream Maintainers
Upstream maintainers, those who actually develop the software, possess the deepest understanding of their projects. They are intimately familiar with every change, dependency, and nuance of their software. Distro packagers, while skilled, can sometimes miss critical details during version bumps, leading to breakages. A real-world example of this can be seen in this bug report , where a dependency change upstream was not caught by the distro packager.
While having upstream maintainers handle packaging seems ideal in terms of accuracy, it also places a significant burden on them. Maintaining packages for numerous distributions, each with its own standards and conventions, can be a daunting task, and many maintainers simply don’t have the time or resources.
Option 2: Distro Maintainers
The alternative is for distributions to handle packaging themselves. This is the path Fedora has chosen, but as the OBS Studio situation demonstrates, it’s not without its challenges. The disconnect between distro packagers and upstream maintainers can lead to miscommunications, missed dependencies, and ultimately, broken or misconfigured packages.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The OBS Studio and Fedora Flatpak issue highlights a systemic problem in the Linux ecosystem. How can we balance the need for secure and up-to-date packages with the limited resources of both upstream maintainers and distro packagers?
Finding a sustainable solution will require open communication, collaboration, and perhaps a re-evaluation of current packaging practices.
The discussion needs to move beyond simply blaming one side or the other and focus on creating a system that works for everyone involved – upstream developers, distro maintainers, and, most importantly, the end-users. Perhaps a more collaborative model, where distro maintainers work closely with upstream developers, could be a step in the right direction.