Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

EvilRob · 2017-04-09 00:14:20

I've been doing some reading on Flatpak and Snaps and doing a little compare and contrast between the two competing app delivery formats. Both formats seem kind of interesting and seem to solve the same problems in different ways. Truthfully, I don't have any experience with either Snaps or Flatpaks. Considering how vast the AUR is and how simple it is to find and install things from it, I'm wondering if Flatpak and Snaps are at all a compelling thing for the Arch user. Have any of you folks used them on Arch?

jasonwryan · 2017-04-09 00:34:57

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

Trilby · 2017-04-09 00:56:42

Or ...

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=213912
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=219150
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=217864
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=213828

This question comes up periodically. My interpretation of each time it does is that someone hears of these things and have an interest in them as if they are a fad or fashion and wonder if we can dress arch linux up in them. If you ask me, snaps, flatpacks, and all other app-store cargo cults are a solution without a problem ... or really perhaps just the opposite.

That said, you certainly could use them in arch. Arch is what you make of it. I'm just not sure what purpose they'd serve.

EvilRob · 2017-04-09 02:11:30

@Trilby, I think the word, fad, describes exactly how I see both of these things. Flatpak and Snap seem to be catching a ton of buzz lately on all of the Linux podcasts I subscribe to and blogs I read. Although I can use them in Arch, I'm just trying to see if there's a reason I would want to. The problem that it looks like both of these things are trying to solve is the idea of having a universal package format that works across distros. It could potentially be a way that an upstream vendor might package and distribute an app directly to their users in a similar manner that a Windows developer might make an EXE installer available from their web site. Personally, I find the whole notion of having package maintainers that package software specifically for each distro is one of the good things about Linux. Especially with Arch since pretty much all of the apps I use from the repos are the latest versions from the upstream vendors.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-04-09 09:45:27

EvilRob wrote:

Although I can use them in Arch, I'm just trying to see if there's a reason I would want to.

^ This.

Flatpaks are quite useful for something like Debian stable because they allow newer programs (such as GIMP-Devel) without disturbing the dependency chain but of course this makes no sense in Arch and also undermines the security paradigm.

Trilby · 2017-04-09 10:30:28

I'd second all of your assessments EvilRob. I'm all for an exchange of ideas and information among parties with different strengths and weaknesses which could better all in the long run. But this only works when each party's strengths are shared with the others who have weaknesses in that area. I find more strengths in Linux than Windows (by far), but there could certainly be some things that Windows does better and Linux might be able to learn from that. But I'm not sure who could possibly look at methods of installing software and say "I wish Linux had a more windows-like approach." That'd be a bit like looking at a twinky and - upon recognizing that there is frequently a trade off between taste and nurtitional value - thinking "I wish I could keep the nutritional value of this twinky, but give it the flavor of dry bran flakes."

Perhaps snaps/flatpacks could be useful for a distro with no good way to install packages: if there is no good method, you are left accepting a bad method. HoaS has much more debian experience than I do - though I find it surprising that snaps/flatpacks could really the least bad way to install something like GIMP-Devel there, but perhaps it is. It's certainly not the least bad way in arch: we actually have *good* methods of installing packages: even arbitrary new ones for which we just need to get a PKGBUILD together.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-04-09 14:43:20

Trilby wrote:

we actually have *good* methods of installing packages: even arbitrary new ones for which we just need to get a PKGBUILD together.

Debianising source code is fairly trivial once you are familiar with the methods and openSUSE will host custom repositories for the packages, as can be seen from @stevepusser's help in my linked thread.

So no, even in Debian stable flatpaks are not the best solution. But they are quite convenient and simple to use

phw · 2017-04-10 06:42:00

Just dropping my 5 cents here as a developer and user having played around with flatpak a bit: For Arch I also don't see much use in Flatpak or Snap, as Arch is both a rolling release and makes it rather easy to install even third party software. But if you want both are an option to install software in a clean way.

I have installed some software with Flatpak, and one nice thing is that it makes it trivial to have multiple versions of the same software installed at the same time. And installation and updating software with Flatpak is also quite easy. Thanks to the concept of a runtime the installation size of a Flatpak is also rather small, but that benefit depends on many applications sharing the same runtime. Let's hope there won't be too much fragmentation here. As a developer I enjoyed how easy it was to package some software. Flatpak is not quite there yet, there are many open areas especially around the sandboxing part, but it is under active development and a lot of desktop software could be packaged with Flatpak without lack of functionality. By providing a Flatpak I can give users easy access to my software without waiting for distributions including it and without forcing users to do source installations (which often leads to a mess if less experienced users do it and happily mix source installations and system packages).

Most of what I said about Flatpaks also can be said about Snaps, although I had a less pleasant experience when trying to package my software as snaps. Important differences are maybe the centralized nature of the Ubuntu store and no easy way to host your own, the larger package size as a snap needs to bundle more dependencies and stronger emphasize on sandboxing with less possibilities to punch holes into it. The latter makes it more difficult to package existing applications that interact more deeply with the desktop. Flatpak allows you to punch big holes, which will change when sandboxing and portals are more mature.

Personally I am looking forward to see those technologies mature. They are not really designed to replace the whole Linux packaging stack, but the combination of a distribution providing a stable base system and giving the user the possibility to easily install the latest third party desktop software is promising. Somehow this gives you the best of how Linux and OSX handle software installation (Windows always had the worst software installation procedure).

phw · 2017-05-15 16:05:44

In addition what I said above I found two use cases relevant to me where I actually use Flatpak:

1. Installing development versions of software side by side with the stable version
That means I have the stable version installed from the repositories, but for testing reasons I parallel install the development version as a Flatpak and can start it if required. You can still argue why one wants to do this, but I have two applications where this makes sense for me.

2. Run proprietary software which requires specific older dependencies and is only available as a binary blob
Yes, e.g. Spotify with it's strict openssl 1.0.0 dependency. Apart from bundling the dependencies without interfering with my system this also has the benefit of sandboxing the app (even though this currently does not provide much benefit since I still run X11).

For everything else I stick to official packages and AUR.

Arch Linux

#1 2017-04-09 00:14:20

Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#2 2017-04-09 00:34:57

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#3 2017-04-09 00:56:42

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#4 2017-04-09 02:11:30

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#5 2017-04-09 09:45:27

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#6 2017-04-09 10:30:28

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#7 2017-04-09 14:43:20

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#8 2017-04-10 06:42:00

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

#9 2017-05-15 16:05:44

Re: Flatpaks and Snaps on Arch Linux?

Board footer