Provide a Flatpak/Submit to Flathub

[Throun]

Provide a Flatpak/Submit to Flathub

[Grub4K]

Why not provide the flatpak yourself?

General philosophy is that all packaging should be done third party and only the release binaries/pypi package are officially maintained.

[Throun]

flatpak isn't that well designed for gui apps

Do you mean CLI apps? Yes, flatpak's not ideal for them, but they can work (John the Ripper, Corese-Command).

Anyways, the binary, while nice, cannot autoupdate (you can use -U, but that's manual) and doesn't include all dependencies, especially ffmpeg. Having an additional method of installation also wouldn't hurt, I imagine.

[MrRawes]

i'm running fedora silverblue, you can already run the yt-dlp release binary and flatpak isn't that well designed for cli apps

[bashonly]

This is not something I would be interested in maintaining, but I'd like to hear from the other maintainers

[Throun]

I'm willing to maintain this if necessary, I just would like input to ensure it meets with maintainers' approval.

[Throun]

Flathub recommends making a request with developers first and I felt I should bring it up here before submitting anything, in case anyone had concerns.

[bashonly]

from flathub:

App developers can submit their apps to be distributed to Flathub's growing user base, thus providing a single gateway to the entire Linux desktop ecosystem.

Some apps have a checkmark on the app page under the developer name. This means the app is published on Flathub by its original developer or a third party approved by the developer.

Some apps are published by third parties that are unaffiliated with the original developer. This is allowed, but such apps are not eligible for the checkmark.

If a flatpak is submitted to flathub by a third party, we will not officially approve it nor will we claim any affiliation with it, since then we would need to consistently monitor it and it would be no less work than maintaining it ourselves.

If none of the other maintainers want to take this on, then you can feel free to submit an unofficial flatpak.

Note about your flatpak manifest: If you want to include the python dependencies, make sure to include the default optional dependency group (e.g. pip install -U yt-dlp[default]), since we intend to move most/all of our required dependencies into that optional group in the near future. You may also want to include secretstorage, which is needed for --cookies-from-browser to work with chromium browsers.

[Throun]

That's understandable.

Note about your flatpak manifest: If you want to include the python dependencies, make sure to include the default optional dependency group (e.g. pip install -U yt-dlp[default]), since we intend to move most/all of our required dependencies into that optional group in the near future. You may also want to include secretstorage, which is needed for --cookies-from-browser to work with chromium browsers.

In case you didn't see it, the manifest sources the necessary python dependencies from the python3-modules file.

[bashonly]

In case you didn't see it, the manifest sources the necessary python dependencies from the python3-modules file.

Ah, I just took a quick glance and missed that. My bad. Clearly I am not cut out to maintain a flatpak

[Throun]

It's OK, I learned most of this through trial-and-error myself. It's one of the reasons I don't mind maintaining this if it comes to it.

[pukkandan]

For us to support a package,

1. The update process must be fully automated
2. Someone needs to be willing to maintain any future breakages

This is why we used to provide brew taps, but dropped it when the contributor in charge of maintaining it disappeared.

Since flathub recommends manual checking before each release, it's probably not suitable for us to maintain.

If that is a non-issue, and you are volunteering to help us maintain it in case of future breakages, then we can support it.

Honestly, I think the needed coordination is more work than it's worth just to get marked as "official", but your choice