←back to thread

The Future of Flatpak

(lwn.net)
306 points dxs | 1 comments | 22 May 25 23:51 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
conradev ◴[23 May 25 00:44 UTC] No.44068680[source]▶
The permissions issues are real.

It still isn't possible to package Tailscale or anything that creates a virtual interface as a Flatpak because there is no permission for that. macOS has an API to ask for permissions to add an interface/change routes.

replies(5): >>44068857 #>>44069176 #>>44069413 #>>44069472 #>>44071203 #
WD-42 ◴[23 May 25 02:48 UTC] No.44069413[source]▶
I'm not sure I'd install tailscale as a flatpak even if it were possible. I've always seen flatpak as a way to install large, potentially crappy desktop applications without polluting your system. OBS studio is a perfect example - it's a great app but it's the only one I use that uses QT, thanks to flatpak I don't even have the QT libraries installed on my system.

Tailscale is more like a system service that I'd prefer a distro package for (Arch Linux repos contain Tailscale, btw).

replies(1): >>44071233 #
vrighter ◴[23 May 25 09:09 UTC] No.44071233[source]▶
You don't have QT libraries installed on your system. You just have then in some archive somewhere along with a bunch of copies of stuff you do already have installed on your system.
replies(1): >>44072605 #
porridgeraisin ◴[23 May 25 13:15 UTC] No.44072605[source]▶
Why does that matter? Copies of a few libraries is just not a problem.
replies(1): >>44081179 #
1. vrighter ◴[24 May 25 13:59 UTC] No.44081179{3}[source]▶
if it doesn't matter then why is them not being in an archive along with a bunch of other duplicate stuff a bad thing?