4 ms·
This is how I finally gave in to using FlatPak. I wanted Okular, but also wanted the rest of the QT stuff it's own little sandbox as I wasn't using it anywhere
by SanchoPanda 4y ago
This is how I finally gave in to using FlatPak. I wanted Okular, but also wanted the rest of the QT stuff it's own little sandbox as I wasn't using it anywhere else.
I did the AppImage thing for a while, but it was too difficult to keep up to date without the developers prodiving that themselves.
Side Note: Flatpak is actually pretty nice, the lengthas I went to avoid it were pretty unreasonable in retrospect.
- qwerty456127 4y agoI want the opposite - the Unix way: just one copy and one (latest release) version of every library my apps use, one theme for all the apps using the same toolkit rather than every app bundling their own version/instance.
- the_third_wave 4y agoSame here, I have yet to find a containerised application platform which fits my ideas of how to build a system. A sensible package manager with a reliable dependency graph - or plain old apt with judicious use of deborphan - goes a long way in allowing the installation of applications with a number of dependencies, testing it and removing all traces of it afterwards. Containers have their use but Flatpak and Appimage have not hit the right spot for me, at least not yet.