From 9f95d23ff45bf65c0d282acd6358d38bdd33ffba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Duncan Tourolle Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2026 14:58:46 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Say that no workflow builds the Flatpak yet NFR-COMPAT-2's table has CI building every channel, the Flatpak included. No workflow in .gitea/workflows/ builds it, and the sweep before this one records that none has been built by hand either. A status note under the table says so, so the decision and the state are not read as the same thing. --- docs/dev/requirements.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/dev/requirements.md b/docs/dev/requirements.md index 10ac849..a8b4ad1 100644 --- a/docs/dev/requirements.md +++ b/docs/dev/requirements.md @@ -2215,6 +2215,9 @@ public channel — and it is the position until those weights are replaced. | Android | Signed release APK, sideloaded (`docker/android/assemble-apk.sh`, the release key of 2026-09-11) — **not** Play, **not** F-Droid | CI | | Windows | NSIS per-user installer cross-built from Linux (`docker/windows/`, FR-PLAT-WIN-3) | CI | +*Status (2026-09-26).* The Flatpak row is the decision, not yet the state: no workflow under +`.gitea/workflows/` builds it, and none has been built by hand (FR-PLAT-LIN-3). + Two consequences the channel decision has on the requirements above it. ARCH §6.9's SAF-only storage model was written because Play would reject anything else; a sideloaded build *could* request broader permissions, and FR-PLAT-AND-1 keeps SAF anyway, because the design is right on