Why is there no automation like https://github.com/flathub/com.bitwig.BitwigStudio/commits/master/ ?
Flatpak is not the future
./configure && make && sudo make install is not the future
Well... of course only time will tell, but the fact that we've been doing that for sooo long... (me for ~20 years?) would imply that it might just be around for longer than snap/flatpak/etc
Of course, sometimes it's disguised as yay -S...
it sure seems like it though
i mean, they'll never replace system package manager, but for desktop applications, flatpak is honestly quite good
(Not incredibly educated on Flatpaks, please educate me if I'm wrong) My main issue with Flatpak is the bundled dependancies. I really prefer packages to come bundled with the absolute bare minimum, as part of the main appeal of Linux for me is the shared system wide dependancies. Flatpak sort of seems to throw that ideology out the window.
Let me ask this (genuinely asking, I'm not a software developer and I'm curious why this isn't a common practice), why aren't "portable" builds of software more common? Ie, just a folder with the executable that you can run from anywhere? Would these in theory also need to come bundled with any needed dependancies? Or could they simply be told to seek out the ones already installed on the system? Or would this just depend on the software?
I ask this because in my mind, a portable build of a piece of software seems like the perfect middle ground between a native, distro specific build and a specialized universal packaging method like Flatpak.
well, the point of flatpak is to have bundled dependencies so they run predictably no matter the distro
if one of your software's dependency gets updated, and your software isn't, you may run into issues - like a function from the library you're using getting removed, or its behaviour changing slightly. and some distros may also apply patches to some of their library that breaks stuff too!
often, with complex libraries, even when you check the version number, you may have behavioural differences between distros depending on the compile flags used (i.e. some features being disabled, etc.)
so, while in theory portable builds work, for them to be practical, they most often are statically linked (all the dependencies get built into the executable - no relying on system libraries). and that comes with a huge size penalty, even when compared to flatpaks, as those do have some shared dependencies between flatpaks! you can for example request to depend on a specific version of the freedesktop SDK, which will provide you with a bunch of standard linux tools, and that'll only get installed once for every package you have that uses it
wrong answer sound
Why is the flatpak not verified on flathub? Hmm
From the conversation it seems to be a similar situation to the project I'm with is in. The flatpak is essentially community maintained rather than being directly supported by the team. To become verified it needs to be done so by a representative of the maintainers of the software. To be verified it doesn't have to have a team member involved in it but this is a requirement Inkscape seem to have imposed.
For us we just aren't in a position to want to support it officially just yet, we have some major upgrades coming to our underlying tech stack that will introduce a whole bunch of stuff that will allow various XDG portals etc. to work properly with the Flatpak sandboxing model. To support it now would involve tons of workarounds which would need to be removed later.
Why is the flatpak not verified on flathub? Hmm
Because it's not by upstream Inkscape, apparently.
Wait till you learn that your flatpak client doesn't verify anything it downloads
Oficial repositories, unoficial repositories, flatpak, snap... What happened to just donwload the app from it's own creator and install on your machine? Why do we need every app being touched by some rando before I can install it on my box?
Your wanted option is not gone, you can still download the binaries if the author presents them; or you can compile it from source. This is just another, more convenient way to distribute the program.
If you are looking to get your programs Windows-style, to download a binary or "install wizard", then you can look into appimages.
Like any form of distribution however: someone has to offer this, be it the author or "some rando".
Appimages have no install wizard. And Windows executables have some weird signature verification which Appimages dont have at all.
And Windows executables have some weird signature verification which Appimages dont have at all.
EDIT:
Appimages have no install wizard.
Appimagelauncher, gearlever, AM, etc. Which is the same as a install wizard since it integrates the appimage into the system. AppImages do not need to be extracted into the system which is what windows install wizards do.
Appimages came before these tools, and the tools (forgot the name GearLever, AppimagePool is another one) came afterwards.
They are structurally better as they are external.
That verification is interesting. So it is another appimage, used to verify appimages? Are all Appimages using that, if not what percentage of the ones you know? And are tools like Gearlever enforcing or using that signature check?
Are all Appimages using that, if not what percentage of the ones you know?
Usually if the appimage has a github release with a zsync you have that verification.
And are tools like Gearlever enforcing or using that signature check?
I don't use gearlever, as far as I know gearlever doesn't even let you sandbox the appimage like AM does. I don't think any of those forces signature verification besides AppImageUpdateTool and that's because that's part of the zsync update process.
Interesting, will look into this. The issue is of course that these tools are optional.
But if they work, they may fix nearly many issues. Some will remain, for example many proprietary apps dont use Github releases, while these may be especially targets of fakes.
True. Still the most windows-like installation method.
If you mean downloading random stuff from random websites, yes.
But they dont have installers, so no verification, no moving to locations where executing is allowed (on Linux the entire home is executable which is a huge security issue) no desktop integration, no context menu, no file associations.
What happened to just donwload the app from it’s own creator and install on your machine?
You have that option with the appimage, inkscape releases it themselves.
Thats how packaging works.
On Android I use Obtainium, as the package manager deals with signature verification. On Linux, Flatpak is the only equivalent to Android apps.
RustDesk is the only Flatpak not from Flathub I use, because they have messed up permissions.
Keep in mind the Rustdesk flatpak has full access to your machine and isn't sandboxed
Yes true, thats why it is not published on Flathub.
I will add an override to it that makes sense.
Yeah I don't trust it. Chinese made potential spyware
Lol
Because it is better?
!boinc@sopuli.xyz flatpak also needs a flatpak maintainer! Your work would help people contribute their spare computational power to scientific research. If you are passionate about fighting cancer, mapping the galaxy, etc this is an awesome way to contribute to that effort in a very force multiplying way.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0