Post AWLqKlnwcssiLevcx6 by adhami@fosstodon.org
(DIR) More posts by adhami@fosstodon.org
(DIR) Post #AWLhXSIPZRwS1L9YR6 by dwaltiz@pleroma.soykaf.com
2023-06-04T13:26:46.732239Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barthalion oh u
(DIR) Post #AWLqKjdEhj7xbru2z2 by adhami@fosstodon.org
2023-06-04T12:44:01Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeleton @martijnbraam When I read the title, I thought it's going to be pro-flatpak article.You **want** the packaging/development to be as easy as possible. If it was harder to release an app on flathub I would have never bothered making FOSS. I also would like my application to be available for everyone. To wait for the attention distro packagers to spend some of their sweet time to package my application (which will get outdated in a day) is really stupid.
(DIR) Post #AWLqKlnwcssiLevcx6 by adhami@fosstodon.org
2023-06-04T12:45:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeleton @martijnbraam I was also able to create a full app in under 24 hours and make it available for everyone running linux around the world with very easy installation method. I cannot do that without flatpak and flathub.
(DIR) Post #AWM0K44WDqN2Ftz1UG by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T16:55:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeleton> Separating every dependency would be really inconvenientNot if you do it the right way. Having to become maintainer for each of my dependencies is one of the worst things about Flatpak, and it's something I've said before. And I say that as an extremely pro-Flatpak person.
(DIR) Post #AWM0KKCYFkIqHRrfEG by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T16:55:56Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeletonCurrently, the SDK extension system for certain dependencies is great, but we need to simplify it and extend it to more dependencies. It should be as simple as specifying the dependency name, its major version in a notation such as "^1.2.3", and have flatpak-builder look it up in some dependency repo and bundle the correct version. In fact, that way we would take advantage of OSTree's deduplication system.
(DIR) Post #AWM0mDr5RR4Khr7wxM by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
2023-06-04T17:02:20.168559Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nahuel @TheEvilSkeleton I'll admit there's a weird implication to that, however: Flatpak would effectively become yet another package manager. And I wonder if that should be within its scope or if it should be aided by other tools (you know, existing package managers), for the sake of keeping things clean and reasonably flexible.
(DIR) Post #AWM1Gy1GMvikZMXzRA by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T17:06:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xerz Yes and noThe current package managers are managed by the users themselves on their systems. They download packages of apps, and the dependency packages of those same apps, and install them all on their systemsWhat I was proposing is that the "package manager" should be flatpak-builder, not Flatpak. For Flatpak, everything would stay the same. The only change would be that as a dev you no longer have to write the recipe to compile libsass and sassc for every app you have that uses sass
(DIR) Post #AWM1GyjvgrRwntRf3g by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
2023-06-04T17:07:49.694565Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nahuel I understood that nuance, sorry if it didn’t came out clear here…but wow do I feel like there’s a ton of overlap here with a Nix+bwrap…
(DIR) Post #AWM1xw8pE8fjCGZe52 by tromino@snug.moe
2023-06-04T17:12:51.938Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xerz@fedi.xerz.one @nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com @TheEvilSkeleton@social.treehouse.systems that's pretty much what it is already tho, including all the disadvantages
(DIR) Post #AWM1y1KLwhrdHT0QF6 by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
2023-06-04T17:15:37.701326Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tromino @nahuel @TheEvilSkeleton Yesno, it's very limited on purpose so there's a clear separation between runtimes/platforms and apps, clearly incentivizing to reuse in the former and specialize in the latter. Otherwise these replies wouldn't make much sense
(DIR) Post #AWM44bBPkPDQ8D5bJg by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T17:37:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeletonNot really. While shared-modules was an attempt to achieve common modules between various Flatpak packages, to thereby take advantage of OSTree's deduplication system, it has the problem that it's not really versioned....... mainly because it's just a set of JSON/YAML files that you reference from your manifest
(DIR) Post #AWM44bnhS3qA2x0AzY by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T17:37:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeleton What I would prefer is that the dev of each dependency should be able to publish it in a dedicated repo, and have proper versioning system. Then each app developer simply references the dependency, with the specific version they need
(DIR) Post #AWM45098vzFlYPDdkO by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T17:38:18Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeleton I mean... there are lots and lots of devs who are very used to how Node and NPM works nowadays. They simply have a package.json where if they need a dependency, they write:"dependencies": [ "my-dep": "^1.2.3"]and then it's up to NPM to install a version of "my-dep" that meets those requirements (i.e., any version of "my-dep" that is >= 1.2.3 and < 2.0.0)
(DIR) Post #AWM45W0kSjYINdXO6a by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T17:38:45Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeleton The difficulties and challenges Flatpak presents for devs I saw clearly reflected when @elementary decided to use Flatpak as the primary means to distribute their apps, as in the Slack I started to find a lot of people who had no idea how to compile and bundle their dependencies... and do they really need to know? It also triggered the appearance of this website: https://flatpak-modules.vercel.app/
(DIR) Post #AWM47tTYC0w5jX8xuK by nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com
2023-06-04T17:38:57Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheEvilSkeleton (there's also the fact that I've had to assist people outside elementary on how to compile in Flatpak the libraries they didn't even know they needed for their apps)
(DIR) Post #AWM4OPoXj6AefAqBnM by tromino@snug.moe
2023-06-04T17:19:59.110Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xerz@fedi.xerz.one @nahuel@social.nahuelwexd.com @TheEvilSkeleton@social.treehouse.systems but that separation could still exist even if libraries were packaged individually on the flatpak level, right?
(DIR) Post #AWM4OQQTS4VoYoaTuy by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
2023-06-04T17:42:51.040963Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tromino if it is scoped to `flatpak-builder`, sure, although you still have added a new dependency manager that is in turn making it into a "proper" package manager