Provide a Flatpak package.

[RokeJulianLockhart]

My rationale is available at github.com/RokeJulianLockhart/RokeJulianLockhart/issues/7. ¹

Footnotes

1. #event-16782622563 ↩

[ppacher]

Hi again @BEEDELLROKEJULIANLOCKHART ,

as mentioned in #44 we are currently lacking the resources to manage multiple package repositories. We do provide installers for Debian based distros (.deb), Arch-Linux (PKGBUILD) and Windows. Flatpak is definitely something we will look into but there are also other package repos we need to check out.

[RokeJulianLockhart]

#43 (comment)

However, @ppacher, certainly, maintenance of a flatpak-packaged version shall be less work if the container is not too prohibitive. If it is too prohibitive, snap may be a useful competitor, because, as is demonstrated by the instruction for installation of PowerShell at the PowerShell Snap (which is sudo snap install powershell --classic), snap-packaged software is able to be installed “classically”, as this official article describes. I have created an additional issue for packaging as snap-packages at #45 (comment).

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as inactive because it has not had activity in the past two months.

If no further activity occurs, this issue will be automatically closed in one week in order to increase our focus on active topics.

[soredake]

Not stale.

[S7venLights]

I heard that Flatpaks sandbox has improved a lot and it seems to be the favoured packaging format for many distros now, certainly for immutable distros.
It is also compatible with all distros, so realistically, you could only support flatpak and no further packages and be done with it.

For those with immutable Fedora OS trying to install, let me know, I can link to a script that allows Portmaster to install in a useable directory. *Edit, here's the script

[andersrh]

I heard that Flatpaks sandbox has improved a lot and it seems to be the favoured packaging format for many distros now, certainly for immutable distros. It is also compatible with all distros, so realistically, you could only support flatpak and no further packages and be done with it.

For those with immutable Fedora OS trying to install, let me know, I can link to a script that allows Portmaster to install in a useable directory.

I'm on Fedora immutable OS and would love to get a link to that script you are mentioning.

[S7venLights]

I'm on Fedora immutable OS and would love to get a link to that script you are mentioning.

Mentioned in #56 but here's a direct link

[Eggroley]

Any update on flatpak support?
Is it possible? Is it still being looked into? Is it not being considered? Are you waiting for further improvements to flatpak?

It's been awhile since this issue was active. Thought some form of update would be nice.

[S7venLights]

It's been awhile since this issue was active. Thought some form of update would be nice.

I suppose they will still be busy with the IVPN merger and android app for a while, but I hope flatpak will become a reality one day, maybe they'll have a dedicated Linux maintaining team at IVPN.

[RokeJulianLockhart]

I heard that Flatpaks sandbox has improved a lot and it seems to be the favoured packaging format for many distros now, certainly for immutable distros.

@S7venLights, solely immutable distributions. For others, it replacing their native packaging format is unachievable, due to the way that its sandbox functions. You can confirm this by asking one of the <5 in the world people who've attempted to create a CLI Flatpak package, if you can find them. It's an incredibly useful complement, but unlike Snap or MSIX, it cannot replace RPM and Deb, etcetera.

#43 (comment)

@Eggroley, I presume that that is the reason this is taking a while. I'm unfamiliar with how many package types this project generates, but if they're creating a compliment via something like the Open Build Service, there's little rationale to create something with an overlapping scope.