[Discussion] Own Debian Flatpak repo

[fazer227]

Hey guys,

The more I use Debian combined with Flatpaks, the more I wonder why Debian doesn't have it's own Flatpak repo like e.g. Fedora. Is there a specific reason why such a Flatpak-repo doesn't exist?
I think Flatpaks more and more become the future of packaging formats and I think it isn't good, that flathub.org currently has a monopoly. In my opinion all distributions should offer a variety of packages in their own Flatpak-repo. So it can be ensured that if flatpak.org may make some controversial decisions, nobody is depending on it.

fazer227

[Uptorn]

If there's going to be an internal effort to package software, it just makes sense to do so for apt.

I thought one of the main motivations of windows-style software packaging like snaps or flats was so that the burden of packaging the software gets moved away from distro maintainers over to the individual software projects.

[steve_v]

Is there a specific reason why such a Flatpak-repo doesn't exist?

At a guess, because Debian already has a perfectly good set of repositories, package formats, and tooling in the form of apt and dpkg.

I think Flatpaks more and more become the future of packaging formats

I don't.
Among the motivations behind these supposedly "universal" packages were reducing fragmentation between distos and duplication of packaging work, and reducing maintainer workload by having upstream developers package their projects directly.
The former is clearly a troll as we now have 3 more package formats to deal with, and the latter is completely invalidated if we expect distribution maintainers to run distro-specific flatpak repositories as well as native formats.

In my opinion all distributions should offer a variety of packages in their own Flatpak-repo.

If you are volunteering your time to manage a Debian flatpak repository, good on you. I suggest you make a proposal on the mailing lists.
If you're just opining on what you think other people should do, here's my counter-opinion: How about focusing limited resources on the repositories and formats we already have?

[Bulkley]

How about focusing limited resources on the repositories and formats we already have?

Agreed.

Debian's repositories are massive. There is no *pak repo of any sort that comes close to what Debian already has.

[peer]

I tried flatpak and snap last week in a vm. I installed vlc and libroffice. I liked that there was a starter created in my menu. It would be nice if the starter showed that it belogs to a flatpak/snap package. The only difference I see is the used icon.

I noticed that it took quite a while for vlc and libreoffice to start. Flatpak is a little less slow.
Libreoffice (flatpak and snap) did not look as good as libreoffice from the repo. (desktop integration??)
I could only install the complete libreoffice package not just libreoffice-writer
I could not find a flatpak or snap for double commander

But the flatpak an snap packages were newer than the versions from the repo. This can be an advantage.

For me there is no need for flatpak or snap. So I do not need an extra repo just for flatpak/snap packages.

[Uptorn]

Libreoffice (flatpak and snap) did not look as good as libreoffice from the repo. (desktop integration??)

Because the Debian apt package courteously installs libreoffice-gtk3

Code: Select all

Description: office productivity suite -- GTK+ 3 integration
 LibreOffice is a full-featured office productivity suite that provides
 a near drop-in replacement for Microsoft(R) Office.
 .
 This package contains the Gtk plugin for drawing LibreOffices widgets
 with Gtk+ 3 and Gtk/GNOMEish print dialog when running under GNOME.

That's an interesting downside I hadn't even considered to snap/paks. They can't make assumptions about the environment they'll be dropped into, so they forfeit niceties like DE integration.