Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reconsider Flatpak packages #1375

Open
p5 opened this issue Nov 12, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Reconsider Flatpak packages #1375

p5 opened this issue Nov 12, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@p5
Copy link
Contributor

p5 commented Nov 12, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem?
Installing DevPod on other Linux distributions comes with challenges dealing with AppImage dependencies. It would be nice to have packages provided by Loft.sh for Flatpaks on Flathub so installing DevPod is as easy as any other software.

Which solution do you suggest?
I noticed you are now working on the Tauri v2 migration, which comes with a lot of improvements. The one I'm most looking forward to are the Flatpak and RPM support which should make providing these packages trivial.
Flatpak is distro-agnostic, and works across many distributions, so I'd suggest starting with this to provide the most value to users.

Which alternative solutions exist?
I, along with the other Universal Blue collaborators, have been maintaining Fedora COPR RPM packaging of DevPod for a couple years, though this has a ton of problems, especially when running with Nvidia GPUs. I'm hoping the switch to Tauri v2, and Tauri's native support for this format, will resolve these issues.

Additional context
This has previously been rejected since Tauri v1 didn't support these packaging formats, which is why I'm hoping we can give it another shot. 🤞

@pascalbreuninger
Copy link
Member

Hey @p5, you're right, with tauri v2 we should have a significantly easier way of distributing flatpak and RPMs. In the past we've shied away from supporting more than one linux package type because of the added support and maintenance overhead.

It's amazing that you and other collaborators stepped up and created their own packages, thank you!

I'm going to leave this issue open until we've changed the pipeline

@castrojo
Copy link

Happy to run into ya'll at Kubecon! As (quickly) discussed, I'd be happy to help link you up with the right folks at Flathub to get you going as fast as we can. Let me know how I can help, thanks!

@p5 p5 changed the title Reconsider Flatpak or RPM packages Reconsider Flatpak packages Nov 20, 2024
@p5
Copy link
Contributor Author

p5 commented Nov 20, 2024

I've scoped this issue down to only providing Flatpak packages hosted on Flathub.
Flatpaks reduce the need for RPMs and other distribution-specific packaging, so it seems the most valuable format to look at first (and it uses the pre-existing, and working, .deb formats behind the scenes).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants