compiled_license VS flathub

app-id: dev.geopjr.Hashbrown runtime: org.gnome.Platform runtime-version: "3.38" sdk: org.gnome.Sdk command: hashbrown finish-args: - --socket=wayland - --socket=fallback-x11 - --share=ipc cleanup: - /include - /lib/pkgconfig - /share/doc - /share/man - "*.a" - "*.la" modules: - name: libevent sources: - type: git url: https://github.com/libevent/libevent.git tag: release-2.1.12-stable - name: hashbrown buildsystem: simple build-commands: - $(pwd)/crystal/bin/crystal build ./src/hashbrown.cr --no-debug --release - install -D -m 0755 hashbrown /app/bin/hashbrown - install -D -m 0644 extra/Hashbrown.desktop /app/share/applications/dev.geopjr.Hashbrown.desktop - install -D -m 0644 extra/icons/logo.svg /app/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/dev.geopjr.Hashbrown.svg - install -D -m 0644 extra/icons/symbolic.svg /app/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/dev.geopjr.Hashbrown-symbolic.svg post-install: - install -D -m 0644 extra/dev.geopjr.Hashbrown.metainfo.xml /app/share/metainfo/dev.geopjr.Hashbrown.metainfo.xml sources: - type: git url: https://github.com/GeopJr/Hashbrown.git tag: v1.2.0 commit: 02ecf5cc5aacc32fc484fd9e348d2b1220168295 - type: archive dest: crystal/ url: https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/releases/download/1.0.0/crystal-1.0.0-1-linux-x86_64.tar.gz sha256: 00211ca77758e99210ec40b8c5517b086d2ff9909e089400f6d847a95e5689a4 - type: git url: https://github.com/jhass/crystal-gobject.git commit: 6468c57f8aa54b71c766d27b1e59e87a09ee8552 dest: lib/gobject - type: git url: https://github.com/elorest/compiled_license.git tag: v0.1.3 commit: f287c2c8c95579688fa5620df954d8cc1272cbbf dest: lib/compiled_license

> Nobody ever even audits the binary contents of flatpaks on flathub (were they actually built from the source? the author attests so!).

IME/IIRC There aren't (or shouldn't be) any binary contents on Flathub that are submitted by the author, at least for projects with source available? You're supposed to submit a short, plain-text recipe instead, which then gets automatically built from source outside the control of the author.

> The Flathub service then uses the manifest from your repository to continuously build and distribute your application on every commit.

https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/submission/#ho...

Usually the recipes should just list the appropriate URLs to get the source code, or, for proprietary applications, the official .DEBs. Kinda like AUR, but JSON/YAML. Easy to audit if you want:

https://github.com/orgs/flathub/repositories

I also don't believe third parties maintainers packaging software on flathub is a big issue but I'm also not familiar with how other distro repos trust their maintainers. Hopefully more developers maintain their flatpak themselves (or someone they trust) and get their apps verified. If most apps are verified, warning users of unverified apps might be a good idea.

There's ongoing discussion about splitting open source and proprietary apps in to seperate repos [1]. Additionally having seperate repos for verified and unverified apps might make it more obvious where an app comes from in the cli.

But I don't know how seamlessly an app could transition between being in the third party repo and being in the official repo. Having the user quietly stop receiving updates seems like a bad idea, but automatically migrating might not be desirable either.

I also think flatpaks cli interface needs some work. It is functional but far from distro package managers.

Being verified is especially important for critical apps. Recently someone added malicious versions of apps to the snap store [3]. This lead to people getting their cryptocurrency stolen.

[1] https://github.com/flathub/flathub/issues/691

[2] https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/requirements

[3] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/temporary-suspension-of-automat...

That means Linux users can now install Bforartists on any Linux distro easily, regardless of glibc version! https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4295

Still having some problems with the flathub build, see https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4082 for the current status.

Here is the flathub draft pull request: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4082

i assume you dont know how flathub works , theirs little or no QC , done flathub is just get told theirs an update for the package , if yo go look at the github repo pes https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4164 for example , only updates the link to the girt repo , theirs 0 code checked

It all should be written in pages for contributors, read the docs for fusion, and the docs for flathub.

These are criticisms of the flatpak ecosystem as it stands today. Currently, the Firefox ESR package on flathub seems to be caught in limbo or maybe dead. Mozilla publishes both a snap and a flatpak of Firefox latest, but only a snap of the ESR version. This raises the question of why. Have Mozilla chosen to invest more in snaps than in flatpaks? If so, what's their reasoning? (More users on snaps, making it similar to why they put more investment into Windows than Linux? Something else?) If they haven't invested more into snaps than flatpaks, is this a sign that it's harder to maintain flatpaks (or at least on flathub) than snaps? If that's true, I would hope that flatpak/flathub would be soliciting feedback from Mozilla about it.

Because that may be very hard to sandbox: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/issues/3366