How does it stack up against traditional package management and others like AUR and Nix?

  • rotopenguin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    My main problem with Flatpak is that it hands temporary /var/run/1000 file links to programs instead of real filenames. That would almost be bearable, if Flatpak also took responsibility for keeping those links from breaking sometime after your next reboot.

    If I say “here is a path that an app is allowed to use”, flatpak should just allow an open() in there to work. It should not lie about the name of files in there. An app should be able to open a file there, remember that name, and count on being able to access it again in the future.

    Other than that, Flatpaks are the bees knees. I love finding something I want to do, finding a solution in the flatpak store, and click-click I’m already doing shit. Finding Windows software is absolute garbage next to this.

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Thats basically persistent portals. Would be possible if Distro portals had a button to give the app permanent (static) permission to that dir.

      Would indeed be useful and not hard to implement. In the portal window just add a button “permanent” which does

      flatpak override --filesystem=$PWD org.app.name
      

      Want to open a discussion or Feature request for your desktops portal?