Post B6cI9pUg9NIKhNcHSK by fiore@brain.worm.pink
(DIR) More posts by fiore@brain.worm.pink
(DIR) Post #B6cHViVkgzQBSVzWLY by fiore@brain.worm.pink
0 likes, 0 repeats
well . i have created 2 repos . with READMEs . they will now sit on my laptop completely empty and only containing a vague idea , until the end of time
(DIR) Post #B6cHmk2AHfD96YGnq4 by fiore@brain.worm.pink
0 likes, 0 repeats
container-runtime agnostic application runtime seems like a good ideaso basically , we are talking about flatpak(1) but without any build functionality, and that could work with bwrap(1) just as well as with anything else that implements a similar interface (to be defined tbqh).
(DIR) Post #B6cI6JidpcvpHYTLxA by fiore@brain.worm.pink
0 likes, 0 repeats
the point is to be able to build application images either with tools (like florist , or whatever similar tool that outputs an easily chrootable rootfs ) or manually , since for some applications this would be fairly simple , and then run them all in the same way
(DIR) Post #B6cI9pUg9NIKhNcHSK by fiore@brain.worm.pink
0 likes, 0 repeats
honestly the runtime agnostic bit is not rlly a feature in my mind , its just that id like to use bwrap(1) while i work on it while waiting to be arsed to make an actual alternative to that
(DIR) Post #B6cICd0v0UsQrT1yE4 by fiore@brain.worm.pink
0 likes, 0 repeats
but as i said this is never gonna happen so if anyone wants to pick up my idea instead thats probably better for everyone i suppose
(DIR) Post #B6cIDrJfJh1xVcO0zw by fiore@brain.worm.pink
0 likes, 0 repeats
nothing ever happens or whatever :chuddy:
(DIR) Post #B6cL1oTUM6995Eve8u by oli@mastodon.hermitcollective.net
1 likes, 0 repeats
@fiore youtube.com/watch?v=foHVL5Sa79Q
(DIR) Post #B6cL4tfTVGDu3j0PqK by yakmacker@kalli.st
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fiore "AppImages, but good"™
(DIR) Post #B6cL4u0OFUxB6an7RY by fiore@brain.worm.pink
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yakmacker not really , since appimages use FUSE and are completely unsandboxed , this is much more similar to flatpak in my mind