Is there a downside to Flatpak?

Linux@lemmy.ml – 172 points – 8 months ago

Basically title.

I’m wondering if a package manager like flatpak comes with any drawback or negatives. Since it just works on basically any distro. Why isn’t this just the default? It seems very convenient.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments

no OS level components
duplicate libraries as some core apps (editor, filemanager, Desktop) cannot be flatpaks (yet?)
old runtimes etc. dont force developers to keep them updated. Often thats because or 3rd party packagers though
complicated packaging, I heard that the Flatpak builder is better for certain languages.
theming issues I heard (on Fedora Kinoite Wayland it just works, and I can also force themes per app)
bad permissions by default (best we have though)
bad run commands (this could easily be fixed, and I have a script for it)

For OS components / packaging every part, Snaps may work, but for GUI apps they seem subpar and nobody really cares.

Nix may be way better for installing just anything compartimentalized, but there is no permission system (thats why packaging is easier).

But Flatpaks are really great overall, Bubblewrap, KDE Settings / Flatseal, Portals, official app support. Its really really important.

complicate packaging, XML sucks (are there good editors or something?), I heard that the Flatpak builder is better for certain languages.

What has XML got to do with it? Flatpak manifests are either JSON (not great but OK) or YAML, which is great.

YAML, which is great

countries:
  - fi
  - se
  - no
  - dk

=> { "countries": ["fi", "se", false, "dk"] }

Weird? One I saw was XML or maybe JSON

Probably JSON. I haven’t been involved in Flatpak for a long time but I’ve never seen XML. JSON is quite close to XML in it’s layout sometimes I find so easily mistaken.

YAML, which is great.

Well, someone had to finally believe that.