How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

brittyazel · 2016-10-04 22:47:57

I just wanted to open up a discussion on how you think Flatpak apps and standard Arch packages will fit together, and what role you see each playing in the future. I would like to refrain from any bashing Flatpak, or hardcore negativity towards it, and rather keep this a discussion that you and I can really benefit from.

My thoughts: With being able to pull stable/nightly versions of Gnome/KDE apps, graphics apps (GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, etc), Libreoffice, etc. directly from the creators without the need for packaging intermediaries, when should I opt for a package in the Arch repos vs. when should I default to the Flatpak?

If many upstream applications are released as Flatpaks, is it necessary to host Archlinux versions of these packages? This could free up time and space for Archlinux, if Arch is no longer packaging as many apps. But then again, what do we lose if Archlinux just digresses to upstream for package release?

Further, how do we see a transition existing from Arch packages to Flatpaks? Will arch packages exist only as scripts that add Flatpak repositories and run the Flatpak installer?

Lastly, what does it really mean to be a "distribution" as more and more packages switch to Flatpak/Snap platform agnostic build systems? What makes "Archlinux" Archinux? Will we ever see distributions reduced to their very lowest level components? I.e. Kernel/Systemd/Configuration Scripts/Display Manager

Please share you thoughts, and I am genuinely intrigued to know your opinions

jasonwryan · 2016-10-04 22:55:35

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=217561

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-10-05 07:10:06

... and http://kmkeen.com/maintainers-matter/index.html

Down with flatpaks!

Awebb · 2016-10-05 08:29:39

If Archlinux will ever start repackaging upstream binary releases by default, instead of curating and building packages from source, I will probably roll my own makepkg/pacman based system. I have developed a certain trust in the Arch team over the years, and I wouldn't want to miss them as a buffer between me and upstream doing stupid things.

TheChickenMan · 2016-10-05 09:24:03

I'm not sure who all these nameless people are that think "linux has a problem" having different standards for package distribution. Software developers don't have to care because they just make their source available. It's the distributions themselves that do all the work to put their packages together. It feels like another example of people on the outside coming and saying that you've been doing it wrong and you need to change to "better way TM".

Trilby · 2016-10-05 12:41:09

I have nothing to say directly on topic, as my thoughts have been disallowed from the outset. But I will say this is not a good way to start a discussion: you (OP) ask a question but you have already presumed an answer. You say you want to discuss how flatpak and the arch repos will fit together, but you've already made up your own mind and even specifically said you only wanted to hear good things about flatpak.

"Let's have a discussion to decide between policy A and policy B, but I really only want to hear good things about policy A." ... erm, no, that's not a discussion.

Though I am happy that other participants here took the initiative to ignore that constraint

Lone_Wolf · 2016-10-06 21:05:58

when should I opt for a package in the Arch repos vs. when should I default to the Flatpak?

For me the real question is : who do I trust more , flatpak maintainer or Arch linux developer/ Trusted user ?
My vote for that goes to AL dev/TU .

The flatpak approach looks very similar to microsoft Universal Windows Platform : one size fits all .

If i had to name AL primary characteristic it would probably be something like this :
every instance is unique

brittyazel · 2016-10-06 21:22:44

Trilby wrote:

I have nothing to say directly on topic, as my thoughts have been disallowed from the outset. But I will say this is not a good way to start a discussion: you (OP) ask a question but you have already presumed an answer. You say you want to discuss how flatpak and the arch repos will fit together, but you've already made up your own mind and even specifically said you only wanted to hear good things about flatpak.
"Let's have a discussion to decide between policy A and policy B, but I really only want to hear good things about policy A." ... erm, no, that's not a discussion.
Though I am happy that other participants here took the initiative to ignore that constraint

I never said not to express valid criticism against Flatpak, just not to rush into a content-less bash fest. If you interpreted my post as I'm already "pro-flatpak" and all I want is arguments the are positive, then I'm sorry, but that isn't what I wrote. I honestly have no emotional feelings for or against Flatpak, and to perceive any "angle" in my original statement would be false.

"I would like to refrain from any bashing Flatpak, or hardcore negativity towards it, and rather keep this a discussion that you and I can really benefit from." =/= "Don't criticize Flatpak and discuss places in which it genuinely falls short"
Generally, the ways these discussions go is a few people are trying to have a genuine discussion about real pros and cons, and a much larger group of people just post a bunch of hate without backing it up. Just look at any systemd post on Phoronix and you can see what I was trying to avoid.

Last edited by brittyazel (2016-10-06 21:29:43)

Trilby · 2016-10-06 21:53:33

Your right - I did seem to overinterpret that part of your original post. And it is good to avoid the contentless bashing. Though in my view there are some very valid criticism with the flatpak approach. I think the article linked by HoaS covers my issues quite well, and in my estimation the issues presented in that article place the balance (in my estimation) far in favor of disto packaging rather than upstream flatpak or similar approaches.

So to the title question: I don't think there is any need or reason for arch repos and flatpaks to fit together. If someone wants to try to use the latter, they can go for it, but it likely wont have any impact on arch packaging.

HiImTye · 2016-10-06 22:13:18

if the community moves that way then likely you'll find flatpaks in the AUR, and non-flatpaks from the official repos (and also in the AUR), because the Arch devs can't verify that nothing is wrong with them, and therefore I would assume they'd be reluctant to put their "rubber stamp" on it.

ewaller · 2016-10-06 22:16:06

HiImTye wrote:

if the community moves that way then likely you'll find flatpaks in the AUR,

Actually, I would believe that they would find their own place to live outside of the existing infrastructure. This living place could become an unofficial entity kind of like the AUR.

HiImTye · 2016-10-06 22:21:08

well the reason I think that, is because Flatpaks are sort of like the binary code that already exists there, such as Google Chrome, printer or video drivers, some game software, etc, and PKGBUILD really has few limitations, so if flatpaks were to exist with any sort of widespread adoption, it would probably be in the AUR

ewaller · 2016-10-06 22:45:18

HiImTye wrote:

well the reason I think that, is because Flatpaks are sort of like the binary code that already exists there, such as Google Chrome, printer or video drivers, some game software, etc, and PKGBUILD really has few limitations, so if flatpaks were to exist with any sort of widespread adoption, it would probably be in the AUR

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … g_packages

"Packages that contain binaries or that are very poorly written may be deleted without warning."

ngoonee · 2016-10-07 03:16:41

ewaller wrote:

HiImTye wrote:
well the reason I think that, is because Flatpaks are sort of like the binary code that already exists there, such as Google Chrome, printer or video drivers, some game software, etc, and PKGBUILD really has few limitations, so if flatpaks were to exist with any sort of widespread adoption, it would probably be in the AUR
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … g_packages
"Packages that contain binaries or that are very poorly written may be deleted without warning."

As I understand it, flatpak packages wouldn't be hosted on the AUR, rather there'd be PKGBUILDs on the AUR (say.... firefox-flatpak or something) which would download the flatpak from whatever source (probably on mozilla.com) and install it using whatever flatpak uses to install stuff.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-10-07 06:53:15

For the record, flatpak is already in [Extra] and it works very well indeed, I have posted some scrots...

eschwartz · 2016-10-07 22:07:18

The fundamental purpose of Snap/flatpak is to allow upstream developers to produce blessed binaries so you don't have to worry about your distro packaging something, and it will just run everywhere (like Windows installers bundle everything).

This is not something Linux *needs* -- it may be something people want, though.

Anything that is already in the official repos does not need to worry about any of that...

Arch Linux

#1 2016-10-04 22:47:57

How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#2 2016-10-04 22:55:35

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#3 2016-10-05 07:10:06

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#4 2016-10-05 08:29:39

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#5 2016-10-05 09:24:03

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#6 2016-10-05 12:41:09

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#7 2016-10-06 21:05:58

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#8 2016-10-06 21:22:44

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#9 2016-10-06 21:53:33

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#10 2016-10-06 22:13:18

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#11 2016-10-06 22:16:06

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#12 2016-10-06 22:21:08

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#13 2016-10-06 22:45:18

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#14 2016-10-07 03:16:41

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#15 2016-10-07 06:53:15

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

#16 2016-10-07 22:07:18

Re: How will Flatpak repos and the Arch repos fit together?

Board footer