4 ms·
From TFA: > Needless to say, this most likely an oversight so I have not concluded that this was intentional, yet I don't see a point of disagreement. Develop
by 3np 5y ago
From TFA:
> Needless to say, this most likely an oversight so I have not concluded that this was intentional, yet
I don't see a point of disagreement. Developer != flatpak maintainer. Putting themselves there would rightly have them called out for misappropriation.
- jahewson 5y agoIndeed. I think this reveals a deeper problem with flatpack packaging conventions. The package maintainer is a vital piece of missing metadata.
- iotku 5y agoThis is one of my bigger issues with Flathub that still keeps me uncomfortable. I've been adopting flatpaks a fair bit lately but something doesn't sit right that there's not an obvious way (At least in most front ends) to know: 1) Who the packager is. 2) Is the flatpak officially sanctioned by the developer of the software? 2.5) If not, how do I know that it was packaged correctly? Was the build from a clean source? 3) Is it really the latest version? (or is the potential non-official packager perhaps lagging behind the official release) Perhaps you can dig further into GitHub and get the information, but it's not blatantly obvious at a glance.