[Feature request] Flatpak version

[mhalano]

I don't know if it technically possible, but could you publish in the Flathub so people can install it over Flatpak?

[thomasboom]

Yes, I'd love this!

[ivan-hc]

I think you guys missed the point.

An AppImage is a set of executables and libraries native to a distribution grouped into an archive (which is itself executable, without extraction) and reusable on other distributions, regardless of whether it was compiled on Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, or Arch Linux.

It's therefore possible to convert an AppImage into a native package (DEB, RPM, AUR, etc.) and vice versa.

In contrast, Flatpak is a platform in itself: an app is published to run based on (often cumbersome) runtimes distributed by the platform and specific to that application. You can have a Flatpak based on the GNOME49 runtime, and one based on GNOME47, so you'll have two runtimes. Let's say the app requires Nvidia drivers, you'll need an additional runtime... and so on. Essentially, you're unknowingly installing a virtual machine to run two or three applications. Applications that share these runtimes, sure, there is "deduplication"... but you still have a virtual machine installed!

I hope you now understand what I mean by "native."

Many developers, under the pretext of "lacking resources," distribute their apps solely as Flatpak. Not AppImages. Not DEBs. Not RPMs. Just Flatpak! And Flatpak is difficult to convert to native, unless you're a master of the AUR PKGBUILD.

On the contrary, I believe that many Flatpak developers are simply not capable of taking care of native packages at all (and because of this, I really hope Flatpak collapses entirely, I want to see what they do without alternative packaging in reserve 😡 ).

Well, I see AppManager as an answer to this hypocrisy.

AppManager is distributed as a single AppImage. It weighs minimally (less than 40 MB), and you can run it anywhere. Even on a USB stick. And essential operations are made possible by its ability to coexist with the host system without any kind of layout or runtime, or whatever you want to call it.

The AppManager developer has demonstrated that AppImage is self-sufficient, and doesn't require applications that depend on a runtime to function. Also, AppImage is portable. Flatpak instead has a "well-defined structure" in the system (or better, its own specifications, in /var and ~/.var 💀 ), and you can't suddenly move it from one directory to another without running into problems and hoping it works.

It's by supporting AppImages with AppImages that you grow the ecosystem around this packaging. Not by distributing your app on Flathub to gain visibility and make money, pushing your app to the site's home page with bogus version updates, like some already do.

I still don't understand such masochism. It doesn't make sense.

Do you want apps distributed as AppImages? Then stop Flatpaking every app you see. The PkgForge team works hard every day to create new AppImages. I've created a few myself in my repositories. But AppImages don't improve without bug reports, nor do they become upstream if you keep pushing developers to produce their apps only as Flatpaks! Enough f*ckin runtimes! Soon, we'll have all programs distributed only as Flatpaks! So much so that the day a critical bug brings down Flatpak, you'll have no native apps left to rely on!

By supporting AppImages, you support native! Get that into your heads!

PS: I don't expect the AppManager developer @kem-a to agree with me. That's my opinion.

I truly admire what he's managed to accomplish in such a short time, focusing solely on AppImages and improving his app. And best of all, without having to rely on Flatpak. @kem-a Keep it up!

[thomasboom]

My original suggestion came from a practical place: many users have Flatpak already set up and prefer installing apps that way. Making AppManager available as a Flatpak doesn't diminish what it does - it actually puts AppImage management tools in the hands of MORE users, including those who might not otherwise try it.
AppManager manages AppImages regardless of how AppManager itself is distributed. A Flatpak version would be a delivery mechanism, not a philosophical statement. If anything, it helps the AppImage ecosystem by lowering the barrier to entry for users to discover and manage AppImages.
That said, I respect @kem-a's decision either way. This was just a suggestion based on what might help more people discover this excellent tool.

[ivan-hc]

@thomasboom Another excuse many developers give for only distributing Flatpak is that "it allows them to focus on developing the application."

I'll tell you something: there's a difference between being a developer and a packager. Often, they're the same person, but much more often, they're people not directly involved in the project.

I mean, do you really think the same person can package for Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Slackware, Arch Linux... or are there third-party providers who themselves take care of these packages and their bugs? Think carefully.

There's the example of Bottles, which stopped packaging other formats after seeing Fedora distribute a broken RPM that they never fixed, but for which they continued to receive bug reports even though they weren't responsible. I understand them. In that case, the Fedora team was to blame.

Such situations shouldn't have happened.

But at the same time, we shouldn't stop providing alternatives.

The OBS Studio team doesn't want to distribute AppImages (for obvious reasons, stemming from a conflict with Probonopd), but at the same time they release DEBs, RPMs, and Flatpaks... and thus open the door to third-party packagers, like me, who, even unofficially, can build AppImages.

This is already a step forward.

Ideology? You're wrong. Some people prefer Flatpak, some AppImage, some both. I have nothing against it. But what pisses me off is when people push for distribution in only one format, without providing alternatives. And as I said, it's easy to convert an AppImage to native and vice versa. It's more difficult for Flatpaks.

And then, if we want to talk about popularity... Flathub is a well-established platform. I can't deny that. It is a gooc start point for advertising.But you can also make AppManager popular by talking about it with others. By writing in forums, blogs, commenting... and you'll see that word will spread. You'll free up the developer to focus on their app.

The promotion is up to you, those who love this app. Flathub isn't the only place.

However, if you really want a Flatpak, then do it yourself, for goodness sake. We're on GitHub, you have an account. Suggest a PR. But leave the developer alone! He should focus on improving his app!

We've already seen what happened with GearLever: so much promotion, a wildly popular app... and the developer continues to ignore your requests. He ignored us too, when we proposed a working AppImage, and we built it and published it. What good was that? Not even a thank you from the developer. Did he overdose on popularity to the point of becoming a snob? I don't know.

Now, at least we have someone who understands what AppImage is and knows how to roll up their sleeves to create one. AppManager is a young and already efficient project, but it can improve even more. I'd rather not infect him.

[ivan-hc]

@ClixTW You're so quick at reading what I write. Congratulations.

[thomasboom]

Alright, I'm going to be direct: this response is completely out of line.
I didn't even open this issue - I just commented that I'd also like to see this feature. That's it. You're acting like I've personally attacked the project by agreeing with someone else's suggestion.
Telling me to "leave the developer alone" and that I'll "infect" them is absurd. I left ONE supportive comment on an existing feature request. The maintainer is perfectly capable of saying "no thanks" without you running interference and lecturing everyone who dares to express interest.
And frankly, this kind of aggressive gatekeeping is TERRIBLE for the open source ecosystem. You're not protecting AppImages by attacking people who mention Flatpak - you're just making the community hostile and unwelcoming. New users see this behavior and run away.
I respect your preferences about packaging formats. But you don't get to police what features people can request or shame them for commenting on issues. If you disagree with Flatpak distribution, say so once and move on. Don't turn every thread into an essay about packaging philosophy and unrelated project drama.
I'm done engaging with this. @kem-a can make their own decision about what's best for their project.

[kem-a]

Let's not go into flames and keep it civilized.

[thomasboom]

Indeed!

[mhalano]

I opened this feature request just because I think AppImages are cumbersome. AppManager solves that, but still installing using AppImage to manage other AppImages, still cumbersome. The idea is having a better way to do the installation. Flatpak is a more agnostic solution, but publishing .deb and .rpm packages also would solve the problem, I think. I'm just considering the permissions fact, since Flatpak is quite restrictive and that could make things difficult to the software work, but I think who want to implement the change could verify that.