Jump to content

Flatpak: Difference between revisions

From postmarketOS Wiki
m rollbackEdits.php mass rollback
Tag: Rollback
Line 14: Line 14:


== Why there is no postmarketOS-specific Flatpak repository ==
== Why there is no postmarketOS-specific Flatpak repository ==
Flatpak has good sandboxing features. However, the packaging format is entirely different to APKBUILD, in syntax and in its philosophy. If we created our own Flatpak repository, we would have much more maintenance effort [https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/postmarketos/-/issues/18#flatpak]. Instead, the plan is to bring the sandboxing features to the existing packages, see {{issue|1596|pmaports}}.
Flatpak has good sandboxing features. However, the packaging format is entirely different to APKBUILD, in syntax and in its philosophy. If we created our own Flatpak repository, we would have much more maintenance effort [https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/postmarketos/-/issues/18#flatpak].


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 19:10, 6 February 2024

Note postmarketOS and Alpine developers have no control over the Flatpak repositories and the software may not follow the same principles as we do. Flathub has proprietary software in their repositories.

The recommended way of installing applications in postmarketOS is through the official package repositories from Alpine and pmOS. Advanced users may consider installing Flatpak to install additional applications from Flathub (or other Flatpak repositories).

Installation

$ sudo apk add flatpak

Add Flathub Repository

$ sudo flatpak remote-add --if-not-exists flathub https://flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo

Why there is no postmarketOS-specific Flatpak repository

Flatpak has good sandboxing features. However, the packaging format is entirely different to APKBUILD, in syntax and in its philosophy. If we created our own Flatpak repository, we would have much more maintenance effort [1].

See also

  • postmarketos#18 Evaluating privilege separation for postmarketOS and Alpine apps