Live data from Hacker News

Response to “Flatpak Is Not the Future”

theevilskeleton.gitlab.io

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Response to “Flatpak Is Not the Future”

#21
post #14
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do I get my application to my users? For historical reasons, there hasn't been a good answer to this question for a long, long time What is wrong with a binary in a tarball, like Firefox and Blender and VSCode and everyone else uses? This always seemed like a non-problem to me.

Linker errors

You just bundle all libraries except glibc in the tarball. You build against the oldest glibc you're willing to call "supported". Firefox and Blender (among many others) have been doing this for as long as I can remember, and as long as I can remember their tarballs have never failed to work for me, on any distro.

The problem seems to me to be that there's some kind of cultural imperative to attempt to dynamically link against whatever the system version of a library is, which is clearly insanity.

Re: Response to “Flatpak Is Not the Future”

#23

> you, as an end user, see less storage visually, but data take less space on flash memories compared to hard drives as well. This has been posted to HN so we can point and laugh, right? Because no other response is appropriate to this absolute nonsense.

Yeah, it was weird for me too. XD

Re: Response to “Flatpak Is Not the Future”

#24

Is there any way to actually show the details of a remote flatpak package without installing it first? Something similar to apt show ?

I don't think so, that's why I prefer AURs over flatpak... you can very install script in AURs but not on flatpak.

That seems like a pretty big miss for something that wants to replace distro level packaging. :-/

Re: Response to “Flatpak Is Not the Future”

#25

Is there any way to actually show the details of a remote flatpak package without installing it first? Something similar to apt show ?

I don't think so, that's why I prefer AURs over flatpak... you can very install script in AURs but not on flatpak.

Verify* (F'ing typo!)

Re: Response to “Flatpak Is Not the Future”

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so, that's why I prefer AURs over flatpak... you can very install script in AURs but not on flatpak.

That seems like a pretty big miss for something that wants to replace distro level packaging. :-/

I haven't read the specs or anything, but a packing format where anyone can upload their application, and we cannot verify the installation script isn't a good idea IMO.
Post reply on HN