makedeb
flathub
makedeb | flathub | |
---|---|---|
19 | 114 | |
455 | 1,065 | |
1.3% | 1.7% | |
3.7 | 6.7 | |
8 months ago | 6 days ago | |
Shell | ||
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
makedeb
-
Introducing Mist: An AUR-helper like application for Debian and Ubuntu based systems
Mist comes into play just like you'd expect an AUR helper to. Like how you have makepkg on Arch Linux, makedeb exists for the Debian/Ubuntu side, which is also what powers Mist.
-
Installed WINE, Ubuntu commited suicide. Guess that's goodbye 👋
This is why the makedeb, MPR, Pacstall, and una projects are so exciting. They could bring that robustness and ease of installation to Ubuntu. Hopefully some day the MPR becomes as popular as the AUR.
-
makedeb 14.0.0: Create Debian packages directly from PKGBUILDs
makedeb: Website, GitHub
- Is flatpak really the future?
-
darktable CR3 build in AUR(archlinux)
If you are not on an archlinux(or arch-based) distro, there is a tool for converting the arch package into .deb. The ones I could find: - makedeb. - pacstall. This has a separate script for converting - https://github.com/pacstall/paconvert
- I use Debian btw
-
AUR far easier than Debian installation system?
It's called makedeb: https://github.com/makedeb/makedeb
- What is your preferred way of getting up to date packages and software that is not in the official repository?
- Makedeb – Create Debian Archives from PKGBUILDs
-
[Product Release] Introducing the Debian User Repository: The AUR for Debian distros (More info in the comments)
Well first things first: makedeb. This was a result of me loving Arch Linux's simple and efficient PKGBUILD format for creating packages. Got tired of Debian packaging, so I make Arch's work.
flathub
-
XZ backdoor story – Initial analysis
> 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
- FOSS software is probably less likely to abuse this, but it just depends how ruthless the publisher is, a lot of people desire to be successful and it's human nature to look for advantages to put yourself above others in competitive environments.
-
Flathub – The Linux App Store
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...
-
Bforartists Flatpak, coming soon to Flathub
That means Linux users can now install Bforartists on any Linux distro easily, regardless of glibc version! https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4295
-
Turtle 0.3 released (formerly TurtleGit)
Still having some problems with the flathub build, see https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4082 for the current status.
-
TurtleGit released, a git frontend for GNOME and Nautilus
Here is the flathub draft pull request: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4082
-
The first tip to give to any new Linux user should be "do NOT search for, download, and install software on the Web!"
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
-
Who is behind flathub and rpmfusion really?
It all should be written in pages for contributors, read the docs for fusion, and the docs for flathub.
-
Flathub just hit 1 billion total downloads
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.
-
VirtualBox as Flatpak
Because that may be very hard to sandbox: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/issues/3366
What are some alternatives?
pacstall - An AUR-inspired package manager for Ubuntu
ZeroTier-GUI - A Linux front-end for ZeroTier
mpm - makedeb package manager
Ryujinx - Experimental Nintendo Switch Emulator written in C#
lfs-scripts - Automated script to build Multilib LFS system + livecd
bubblewrap - Low-level unprivileged sandboxing tool used by Flatpak and similar projects
mprweb - Hosting platform for the makedeb Package Repository (MPR)
flatpak - Linux application sandboxing and distribution framework
flat-manager - Manager for flatpak repositories
openbsd-wip - OpenBSD work in progress ports
makedeb-get - Manage packages for makedeb
steam-runtime - A runtime environment for Steam applications