dtourolle/DarkRoom
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 39 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 20 Wiki Activity

Say that no workflow builds the Flatpak yet

Browse Source 
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.
This commit is contained in:
dtourolle
2026-09-26 14:58:46 -04:00
parent 1b8d0e740f
commit 9f95d23ff4
1 changed files with 3 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/dev/requirements.md
+3
View File
@@ -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