The State of Flatpak In GNOME Software

[bkor]

Plus, with runtimes, your application can break as soon as the runtime updates a lib your app is not compatible with. So we're basically facing the same problem we do right now.

The runtime would be something like GNOME 3.20. So the runtime only does updates for 3.20.x. It is up to the developer to release a new flatpak linked to a newer runtime. There's no 'same problem'. The bigger projects are pretty used to stable/unstable, maintaining multiple releases, etc.

[Creak]

I've just heard about GNU Guix package manager which seems to be the best of both worlds (at least on paper).

I think that software like Flatpak, Snappy and AppImage goes against the GNU/Linux philosophy which aims to be simple *and* efficient (I know, that's my point of view). And I think that the ground problem which makes these solutions interesting is that maintaining thousands of packages for each distributions is exhausting, and on top of that the users wants the packagers to be more and more up-to-date with the latest packages. This brings us to Flatpak: no more packagers, just the software, and to hell with resources!

From what I understand, Guix seems to answer most of the problems. It aims to be an distro-agnostic package manager, it installs the software for the whole distribution (in /gnu/store), but it also allows users to have their own store (in $HOME/store), so they don't need to have admin access to install the software they want, and it allows nice features like the possibility to easily roll-back.

Do you have more knowledge of Guix? Do you know what are the cons of this solution?

[bkor]

I think that software like Flatpak, Snappy and AppImage goes against the GNU/Linux philosophy which aims to be simple *and* efficient (I know, that's my point of view).

Making philosophical statements as a reason why someone should not work on what they're working on? You'll likely get that those people continue to work on what they're working on.

The reason Flatpak and Snappy get traction is because there are people who like the idea and put in the effort to realize it. Trying to convince them that they're not doing the right thing as a way to push your own thing? A better strategy is to push for your own idea instead.

This brings us to Flatpak: no more packagers, just the software, and to hell with resources!

I package for Mageia. There's a lot of wasted effort with packaging. Unless I do something, lots of people cannot use some software. Due to packaging you discover bugs in the program. Or you help to ensure testing can happen. However, there's a lot of wasted effort.

In any case, Flatpak does NOT go against packaging. It is an addition to having packages. E.g. with some Mageia stable release users could easily get a new stable release of the software they care about without needing to rely on having 'backports' and the effort of a packager. This effort needs to be repeated across all distributions.

The outrage that you have is unfounded. Wanting Flatpak to stop because some fear you have.