Feature: flathub.org flatpak package

[blackhole89]

Feature: flathub.org flatpak package

[sp1ritCS]

I gave it a shot. The hard thing will be to compile gtksourceviewmm. This is what I came up with, but it fails with

Package 'configure: error: Package requirements (atk >= 1.18 glibmm-2.64 >= 2.63.1) were not met:

Package 'glibmm-2.64', required by 'virtual:world', not found

during the compilation of atkmm, even though glibmm v. 2.64.2 is built.

com.github.blackhole89.notekit.yaml (less important atm, will not work anyways as it does not install the data & sourceview dirs):

app-id: com.github.blackhole89.notekit
command: notekit
runtime: org.gnome.Platform
runtime-version: '3.38'
sdk: org.gnome.Sdk
finish-args:
  - --socket=x11,
  - --device=dri
modules:
  - name: jsoncpp
    buildsystem: meson
    sources:
      - type: git
        url: https://github.com/open-source-parsers/jsoncpp
  - gtksourceviewmm.yaml 
  - name: notekit
    sources: 
      - type: git
        url: https://github.com/blackhole89/notekit.git
    buildsystem: cmake

gtksourceviewmm.yaml (If this works, the rest should be easy):

modules:
  - name: mm-common
    sources: 
      - type: archive
        url: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/mm-common/1.0/mm-common-1.0.2.tar.xz
        sha256: a2a99f3fa943cf662f189163ed39a2cfc19a428d906dd4f92b387d3659d1641d
    buildsystem: meson
  - name: graphviz
    sources:
      - type: git
        url: https://gitlab.com/graphviz/graphviz.git
    buildsystem: autotools

  - name: sigc++
    sources:
      - type: git
        url: https://github.com/libsigcplusplus/libsigcplusplus.git
        tag: 2.10.4
    buildsystem: meson
  - name: glibmm
    sources:
      - type: git
        url: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glibmm.git
        tag: 2.64.2
    buildsystem: meson
  - name: cairomm
    sources: 
      - type: git
        url: git://git.cairographics.org/git/cairomm
        tag: 1.14.2
    buildsystem: autotools 
  - name: pangomm
    sources: 
      - type: git
        url: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/pangomm.git
        tag: 2.42.1
    buildsystem: meson
  - name: atkmm
    sources:
      - type: git
        url: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/atkmm.git
        commit: 5a420b4c62158e7f71796cb4a73532f91f1ebb5a
    buildsystem: autotools
  - name: gtkmm
    sources:
      - type: git
        url: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtkmm.git
        tag: 3.24.1
    buildsystem: autotools
name: gtksourceviewmm
sources: 
  - type: git
    url : https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtksourceviewmm.git
    tag: 3.21.3
buildsystem: autotools

@bilelmoussaoui you offered to help in #42 . Could you take I look at this?

[bilelmoussaoui]

Definitely, I will have a look today

[blackhole89]

Thanks!

Flatpak has been suggested before (#42), but my last attempt to create a package ended in more than a day sunk into reading documentation with nothing to show for it, so at this point I'm kind of reluctant to spend more time on it myself, especially considering that there are multiple different systems of the kind (AppImage, Snap...) which all have been requested and all seem to be fraught with their own difficulties. (With Flatpak, I vaguely remember struggling with packaging up all Gtk+ dependencies, and with making it be able to read/write from the host file system.)

I'd still be very grateful for any pull requests with the appropriate build scripts.

[folknor]

I've never understood why anyone would prefer flatpaks or snaps compared to AppImage.

I realise that now that gnome-software and other stores publish flatpaks it makes the application more discoverable to more users when you publish on flathub. But that wasn't true a few years ago, and the merits of either system hasn't changed since then. Why did flatpaks and snaps "win"? The porn industry hasn't adopted any, as far as I know. They usually decide this sort of thing.

AppImages you just download, optionally chmod +x, and run. Flatpak and snaps require the system to have additional software installed. Makes zero sense to me. AppImages seem to me to be infinitely better.

I just wanted to voice my opinion for posterity, especially in light of #54 (comment). But perhaps I'm just spamming/ranting needlessly.

[sp1ritCS]

I've never understood why anyone would prefer flatpaks or snaps compared to AppImage.

I realise that now that gnome-software and other stores publish flatpaks it makes the application more discoverable to more users when you publish on flathub. But that wasn't true a few years ago, and the merits of either system hasn't changed since then. Why did flatpaks and snaps "win"? The porn industry hasn't adopted any, as far as I know. They usually decide this sort of thing.

AppImages you just download, optionally chmod +x, and run. Flatpak and snaps require the system to have additional software installed. Makes zero sense to me. AppImages seem to me to be infinitely better.

I just wanted to voice my opinion for posterity, especially in light of #54 (comment). But perhaps I'm just spamming/ranting needlessly.

Well, Flatpaks integrate a lot better with the system than AppImages. With AppImages you put the program in charge of updating, adding desktop entries, etc. similar to applications on M$ windows have to install themselves.

AppImages are fine if you just want to try an application without committing to it (or for nightly builds) but I wouldn't use them for any application I want to actively use. I prefer local packages for anything that is available for it, and flatpaks for anything that is not, and for sandboxing non-free software.

Nonetheless, it is your choice what you want to use, and I actually built appimages for notekit, here. But keep in mind that this AppImages doesn't self-update nor adds an desktop entry.