Background-Story: I did a “flatpak update” on a remote client and every package wants the PW for downloading and for installing again. I had to enter the password like 30 times or more.

  • taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    But Flatpak is one of the technologies that explicitly has the developer deal with packaging, something they are usually quite bad at because they don’t do it very often, unlike distro maintainers.

    • stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, but developers can create only flatpak, where they make sure it works and they officially support it, and then completely stop caring about other formats and community packages. Just like Bottles project does.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        where they make sure it works and they officially support it

        Citation needed

        completely stop caring about other formats and community packages.

        That seems to be the case every time developers package software in any way. Sometimes even if they don’t package it at all.

        • stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’ll try to reword it so it’s clearer what I meant: I think developers shouldn’t have to maintain more than one package format, and I think flatpak is the best format to be the one supported by the developer officially. Many developers officially support only .deb for example.