The Flatpak is already packaged and works well. It just needs to be maintained from a person that joins the Inkscape community.
This would allow further improvements like Portal support and making the app official on Flathub.
Update: One might have been found!
Why is there no automation like https://github.com/flathub/com.bitwig.BitwigStudio/commits/master/ ?
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.
Wait till you learn that your flatpak client doesn’t verify anything it downloads
*'til
But the lack of verification and validation is a huge risk to flatpaks. As someone formerly involved with securing OSes, this kind of thing was scary back then and doubly scary since it entered its “don’t confirm; just get in, loser” phase.
😱 so I guess install via appimage?? Package manager? 🤷 🤯 brain malfunction. Im thinking don’t download or install until you verify the download with a hash and hopefully signature if they exist 🤷 use fedora? Which has better security? 🤷🤯
For checksums: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/issues/1498#issuecomment-649098123
Flatpak does verify the integrity of files as it is downloading/installing them. For ostree remotes this is done using GPG signatures (which are better than mere checksums). If you want to see the commit ID (which is like a checksum) for something on flathub use e.g. flatpak remote-info -c flathub org.gnome.Builder and for the local copy flatpak info -c org.gnome.Builder. For OCI remotes we at least check SHA256 sums and there might be more integrity verification mechanisms I’m unaware of.
But for signatures: https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak-builder/issues/435
Checksums are not for authenticity, and link me to the docs that indicates that ostree’s optional encryption is enforced in flatpak
!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.
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.
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.
Flatpak is not the future
I’d say flatpak isn’t the future because it’s already here and seems to be universally accepted as the cross-distro package manager.
I do like how the Nix package manager handles dependencies, but it’s not suitable for app developers packaging their own apps because of its complexity.
If a better flatpak comes around I’d use it too, but at least for graphical apps I don’t know what it’d have to do to be better. In my opinion, flatpak is a prime example of good enough, but not perfect and I’d be surprised if there was a different tool with the same momentum in 15 years (except snap, but they seem too Ubuntu specific).
(except snap, but they seem too Ubuntu specific).
For what it is worth you can install Snap on most distros. https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd
Snap is shit. I started using flatpak because apt didn’t support apps that I wanted and snap only supported ancient releases. .deb is annoying too and .appimage I don’t like to have the files hanging there
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
