[Request] Remove GNOME Tour from base image

[A6GibKm]

Given that one can use a Flatpak from the fedora repository and have it preinstalled on new installs, one can consider removing it from the base image.

[tpopela]

This is definitely a valid request, but there isn't a GNOME Tour Fedora Flatpak yet - I will try to create it in the next few weeks (or actually contributions are welcome) when I will work on Fedora 36 Flatpak Runtime.

[bobslept]

Hi there. In order to help out I've tried to create a flatpak of gnome-tour. It's my first flatpak but it worked out. Currently it's made on Fedora 35. But I would think that changing it to Fedora 36 would be rather easy by replacing the [f35] with [f36], when the runtime is ready.

After building and installing it, I was able to run it with flatpak run org.gnome.Tour and it worked perfect.
Please let me know if I can help and which steps to take from here.

-- Bob

gnome-tour.yaml

---
document: modulemd
version: 2
data:
  summary: GNOME Tour and Greeter
  description: A guided tour and greeter for GNOME.
  license:
    module:
    - GPLv3+
    - CC-BY-SA
  dependencies:
  - buildrequires:
      flatpak-common: [f35]
      flatpak-runtime: [f35]
      platform: [f35]
    requires:
      flatpak-common: [f35]
      flatpak-runtime: [f35]
      platform: [f35]
  profiles:
    default:
      rpms:
      - gnome-tour
  components:
    rpms:
      gnome-tour:
        rationale: Application package
        ref: f35
...

container.yaml

compose:
    modules:
    - gnome-tour:master
flatpak:
    id: org.gnome.Tour
    branch: master
    command: gnome-tour
    finish-args: |-
        --share=ipc
        --socket=x11
        --socket=wayland
        --device=dri

[A6GibKm]

Please use fallback-x11 instead of x11 on gtk flatpak apps

[tpopela]

Thank you @bobslept ! Do you have a Fedora account? If so, can you actually create a build there by using the following documentation - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/flatpak/tutorial/ ? But honestly I would start with that in +- 2 weeks when the F36 runtime is ready and we upstream some fedmod changes, because right now fedmod from Fedora repositories is broken in many cases. I can ping you back here when things will be ready.

[bobslept]

Hi @tpopela, I do have a Fedora account, but I don't know it's a correct one for this kind of work. Yes fedmod didn't work out for me either when I tried it so I just skipped that part and did it by hand. Alright let's wait a few weeks then and pick this up when I receive your ping.

Edit:
I was just thinking. Can getting this in flatpak lead to a problem where lets say for example a fresh F35 install gets the gnome-tour flatpak version from F36 which shows slides for specific features introduced by the latest version. Because there will be only one flatpak version around?

@A6GibKm thank you, I will take a note of that.

[travier]

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/ should help.

Edit: I was just thinking. Can getting this in flatpak lead to a problem where lets say for example a fresh F35 install gets the gnome-tour flatpak version from F36 which shows slides for specific features introduced by the latest version. Because there will be only one flatpak version around?

That's a good point. Maybe this is not a good idea in the end 😕.

[travier]

Or maybe this one: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/

[bobslept]

I found a f36 runtime on koji and installed it locally on F35 machine. Then I build the flatpak against it. Just for testing. This is the result.

Which does not make sense on a F35 system. So indeed it's probably not a good idea in the end.

[travier]

I'll go ahead and close this one. While it would be interesting to have that packaged as a Flatpak, right now this would not be doing what we want. Maybe we can revisit this later.

[felipeborges]

I proposed an alternative to this, which would involve teaching GNOME Tour to display different versions of its content. I wonder what upstream developers will think of it, but it could be that one could pass a version argument to GNOME Tour and have it display the content for that version. See https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-tour/-/issues/52

[bilelmoussaoui]

Note the version number comes from /etc/os-release. We don't hardcode that. Regarding the content of the tour, currently it doesn't seems to be tied to a specific release iirc

[felipeborges]

Note the version number comes from /etc/os-release. We don't hardcode that. Regarding the content of the tour, currently it doesn't seems to be tied to a specific release iirc

My worry for the content would be of Tour promoting new features that aren't available in older versions. For example one would add a new gesture or the overview would change significantly from one version to another, app icon updates, etc...

[travier]

Re-opening given the discussion.

[travier]

Would be great if the Tour app could read the version from somewhere and then show intro pages to the user depending on that.

[JamesBelchamber]

Is there any reason we can't move GNOME Tour from the base image to a pre-installed layer? This would make it trivial to remove by anyone savvy enough to rpm-ostree remove gnome-tour.

[travier]

Is there any reason we can't move GNOME Tour from the base image to a pre-installed layer? This would make it trivial to remove by anyone savvy enough to rpm-ostree remove gnome-tour.

There is no way to setup pre-installed layers right now. Someone would have to work on it.

[travier]

Thinking about this more, I've realizes that letting users remove GNOME Tour would mean that if they create a new user later, it won't show the tour, which is not ideal.

Overall this could be achieved but I'm not sure this is worth the gain so I'll close this for now.