Riddle me this: what is the point of Flatpak if the images have dependencies? It's no different from an RPM! So why?
At least when an AppImage is distributed, you just run the image and you get a running application. The container image contains everything. But Flatpak does not!
At least when an AppImage is distributed, you just run the image and you get a running application. The container image contains everything. But Flatpak does not!
@pro
> At least when an AppImage is distributed, you just run the image and you get a running application.
Heh, that depends on how well built the AppImage is (it's just a self-mounting+executing archive after all), like here a lot of them failed on me due to lack of dbus libraries.
> At least when an AppImage is distributed, you just run the image and you get a running application.
Heh, that depends on how well built the AppImage is (it's just a self-mounting+executing archive after all), like here a lot of them failed on me due to lack of dbus libraries.
@lanodan The only one I ever tried were OpenSCAD and PrusaSlicer, and those worked perfectly.
@pro The dependencies are there for the same reason as rpm, to save disk space. The benefit to Flatpak though is that you're not limited to one family of distros, where rpms only work properly on redhat derived distros, etc. You can also mix entire stacks of software, you could have some programs on a musl toolchain and some on a glibc toolchain and run them on the same system. Or drastically different versions of glibc at the same time. Or perhaps some programs on a kde5 and some on a kde6 base.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0