oreohive activity log

oreohive activity log

What's happening with OBS and Fedora?

2025-02-14 | oreo

What's been kicking off between OBS and Fedora? Why would community-driven open source projects like these conflict with each other like this? There's a lot to unpack, so let's dive right in.

Fedora Flatpaks

So, Fedora has their own repo for Flatpaks, serving aptly named 'Fedora Flatpaks'. The supposed incentive seems to have been to ensure quality about these Flatpaks, and to allow Fedora to vet Flatpaks independently of the universally-accepted Flatpak repo, Flathub.

Fedora, in this experiment, seems to have wanted to provide an alternative to Flathub that they had more control over (in terms of the stability reliability and maintenance of these Flatpak packages).

However, while many have regarded this a 'failed experiment', Fedora has continued to maintain a Fedora Flatpak centrism in their distros; Fedora for the desktop and Fedora in general still seem to hold a prioritisation of (and a rather clear preference for) Fedora Flatpaks over their Flathub equivalents or other types of packages (installed via the likes of rpm). Fedora Flatpak is poised by Fedora as the default for installing Flatpak on Fedora systems, since Fedora Flatpaks are vetted by the Fedora community, not random community members on Flathub, or official entities soliciting the rest of project or piece of software, like OBS.

The unofficial OBS Flatpak package on Fedora's Flatpak repo

OBS (OBS Studio) is a pretty legendary piece of software for video capture, screen capture, livestreaming and virtual camera functionality. If you're reading this, you've probably heard of it, but if not, that's okay.

What we need to know here is that OBS publishes an official Flatpak build to Flathub. This build is official and facilitated / solicited by the OBS community officially. This distribution is packaged by the OBS community itself, NOT a third party.

The room for problems

However, Fedora also packages its own build of the OBS app for its own Fedora Flatpak repository. Okay, sure, but there's one small problem that could happen here, especially if this is the default.

For one, this unofficial package on the Fedora Flatpak repo was presented as if it were official; bugs and issues exclusive to this Fedora Flatpak build were not present on the official Flatpak from OBS itself, but these issues were still being reported to the OBS team, which had nothing to do with this 'rogue packaging'.

This is not exclusive to to this unofficial pakage

As another example, the Arch package retrieved with Pacman is also subject to issues that have yet to be fixed.

The difference here is that this is retrieved by different means and is distinctly an unofficial package.
By contrast, this Fedora Flatpak build s not so transparent about being unofficial, and isn't quite so distinguished, meaning its own issues are being reported upstream to the official OBS community, rather than the package maintainers responsible.

OBS's response to the irrelevant issues reported upstream

OBS, naturally, was not too pleased with the slew of issues being reported of the Fedora Flatpak that was exclusive to the unofficial build.

OBS has tried to address the situation civilly with Fedora, but it's said that the project did not cooperate with them. As an absolute 'last resort', OBS has threatened legal action if Fedora doesn't have the OBS branding from their Fedora Flatpak OBS Flatpak. This would make it abundantly clear that this build (which is effectively a 'fork') is unofficial and of no support from OBS.

My takeaways

I'd argue that Fedora is in the wrong here, rather plainly. I feel that Fedora's efforts to push its own Fedora Flatpaks over Flathub ones (often maintained officially, like in the case of OBS's official Flathub Flatpak package) is proving not only detrimental to user experiences, but a potential burden to the OBS project and its official efforts given its exclusive issues that are prompting inappropriate reports to the official OBS project's contributors upstream.

It's kind of giving Canonical (the creators of Ubuntu) with Snaps (their own package format that they arguably seem to like to shove down people's throats), to be honest.

I hope for OBS that this situation is resolved.

NOTE: This article was largely inspired by this video (by Brodie Robertson on YouTube), with which we largely happen to share our opinions and views on the situation.

I had to rewrite, like, this entire thing after I lost it to accidentally closing this browser window. I'm mad.

you can also check out: