Inkscape Flatpak is looking for a maintainer!
Inkscape Flatpak is looking for a maintainer!
The inkscape project is considering removing the flatpak format from the website's resources/downloads pages because of lack of maintenance. There is no maintainer of the flatpak/flathub format at ...
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/ ?
Flatpak is not the future
./configure && make && sudo make installis not the futureWell... 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...
What is ?
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).
No idea
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.
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.
Thanks for the valuable insight.
Thank you for all your hard work and explanation 🙏👍
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
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
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".
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.
There's also Pied, which hasn't gotten around to submitting to Flathub.
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.