Re: Building nightly flatpak apps in the CI

["Michael Terry" <mike mterry name>]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, at 16:05, Michael Catanzaro wrote:

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:05 pm, Abderrahim Kitouni 

<akitouni gnome org> wrote:

> Some apps use Devel as a suffix to the app-id, some separating it 

> with a dot, and some not.

The dot is pretty important IMO, because without it the app ID just 

looks silly. Compare:

org.gnome.EpiphanyDevel

vs.

org.gnome.Epiphany.Devel

Aesthetics aside, I would make the case for not using a dot. Your normal build and your nightly build are two separate entities. That is, your nightly build isn’t a sub-component of your normal build (in my mind).

For example (and please correct me if I’m wrong), a flatpak sandbox will let you claim any DBus name that is a dot-name underneath your APP_ID. It feels weird to me that a normal flatpak could intrude on the bus namespace of its nightly build (not that it would, but still).