-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
runtime org.freedesktop.Platform branch 22.08 is end-of-life #117
Comments
#82 which would update the runtime to 23.08 has been open for over a year now... meanwhile, 24.08 has been released. Is nobody maintaining the |
The most flatpaks on flathub are not actively maintained and shouldn't be used. I only use flathub-flatpaks where the developer recommends that flatpak distribution over "classic" distributions. There is just too much trash in it. For 0ad I use the fedora flatpak. |
I can't second that. On my Ubuntu desktop, I currently have 77 apps as Flatpaks installed, all from Flathub and as far as I can tell, 0ad is the only outdated one (at least the only one using an EoL runtime). Of course, everything's most streamlined when the upstream developers care about the Flathub distribution themselves – sadly not all do (a popular negative OSS example being Signal devs). It's transparent on Flathub whether an app is maintained by upstream (or someone explicitly entrusted by upstream) via domain verification – so it's easy to avoid such unverified apps.
Thanks for the hint! I've read up about Fedora's Flatpak remote, it seems to be
About the latter I have mixed feelings. It doesn't allow the upstream developers to maintain the Flatpak themselves – it's always built from the RPM – and it doesn't allow them to choose the Linux distro they'd like to base the Flatpak on – it's always Fedora Linux. On Flathub OTOH, it's left up to the publisher to choose the Flatpak runtime. If they don't want to use any of the three official Flathub runtimes, they can simply bundle the dependencies themselves and/or build their own Flatpak runtime. Apparently, OCI containers can even be directly converted to Flatpak runtimes using tools like flatpod. If Flathub would make the switch from being an OSTree-repository to an OCI-registry remote, it would make using non-Flathub runtimes easier for app publishers at the price of increasing storage space requirements for users (since they more likely end up installing apps that use different runtimes). Given the way richer and faster growing "cloud native" OCI ecosystem1, I could imagine that Flathub will eventually make that switch from OSTree to OCI container tech anyways. The Fedora Flatpak remote is nice to have2, but certainly not a real solution to the underlying software distribution problem: As a user I'd need to also add a hypothetical Debian/Arch/Alpine etc. remote for apps that the Fedora project doesn't happen to maintain an RPM for – currently I count 333 (excl. runtimes) in Fedora's Flatpak remote vs. 2810 on Flathub3... Footnotes
|
77 out of how many? Thousand? Anyway maybe your lucky or I'm unlucky but my experience is more than half of the programs I used to install as flatpak went into EOL-runtime state at some point. Also I do not only talk about EOL-runtimes but also about missing updates for new release of the application itself and most critical of dependencies.
Yeah, it solves some of the flathub issues and creates its own issues (you often need to fix static permission by hand for example). |
Flathub currently hosts 2810 different apps, according to their stats. Growth looks pretty healthy, actually.
Yeah, it happened from time to time that other Flathub apps went into EOL-runtime state in the past for a brief period of time for me too, but they all got updated eventually. In my impression, the general situation got better over the last years and compared to the classical distro-specific packaging, Flathub is just incredibly well-conceived and really solves the Linux desktop app distribution model in an excellent way, both technically (via Flatpak) and organizationally (via verified and unverified publications, build moderation and automating as much as possible). What Flathub is obviously still lacking is maintainers for unverified apps.
The 0ad Fedora RPM is cherry-picking commits from upstream's development branch onto the latest upstream release (alpha 26) in order to be able to update dependencies. This is not a solution for app distribution but rather a workaround for a lack of upstream maintenance. You can twist and turn it however you like: In the end, the underlying issue you're complaining about is caused by poor upstream maintenance of their latest stable Linux release (still called "alpha") and/or ignorance towards Flatpak, cf. #125 (comment). |
Info: runtime org.freedesktop.Platform branch 22.08 is end-of-life, with reason:
org.freedesktop.Platform 22.08 is no longer receiving fixes and security updates. Please update to a supported runtime version.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: