Olive: Add support for Flatpak packages

[LeandroStanger]

http://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/introduction.html#reasons-to-use-flatpak
https://github.com/flathub/flathub/wiki/App-Submission

[notramo]

Flatpak requires the flatpak tool to be installed.
I recommend AppImage, which doesn't require a package manager. Just download it, make it executable, and run.

[LeandroStanger]

I use the Endless OS only supports only Flatpak

[notramo]

AppImage is supported by every Linux.

[LeandroStanger]

AppImage is not supported by Endless OS

[notramo]

From their website: "Linux apps that run anywhere"
It don't need support from distro maintainers.
Installation is not required, the AppImage file contains all the required dependencies.
It requires three simple steps:

1. Download
2. Make the file executable
3. Run the file

Indeed, it would be better to have it in the menu instead of putting the AppImage file on the Desktop, but maintaining packages requires lot of time that @itsmattkc could spend on writing code instead. Since AppImage runs on older computers also, and it don't require a custom package manager nor support from distro maintainers, I recommend packaging Olive in AppImage. Endless OS packagers could create Flatpak packages for their distro.

[itsmattkc]

I don't have an issue setting up a Flatpak package as it seems it can be set up to automatically build from the Git repo. It's true that I wouldn't have much time to _maintain_ it, but I don't think it'll require much once it's set up. An AppImage would be cool to make too at some point.

[louis-irl]

AppImage has the issue of not having any real built in method of updating. Flatpak connects to a repository, so that's not an issue. Some distros are even starting to include the option to auto-update them.

[notramo]

@suckybell https://github.com/AppImage/appimaged

[probonopd]

AppImage as a format is not specifically endorsed or supported by Endless OS but can run on Endless OS just fine, like on most other distributions. In fact the format is specifically designed so that it does not have to be supported by the distribution, so as to make it universally usable across most.

With AppImageUpdate, you can get very efficient "binary diff" updates.

Would you be interested in a pull request that builds and publishes an AppImage?

[AngryPenguinPL]

Well, If i can vote, I would choose Appimage.
Why? Flatpak or snap is insecure and many distros not support it. So for distro A, you need prepare Flatpak but on distro B, flatpak is not available, they provide only snap support, so then need build it as snap. On distro C, none of them available. So? Better choose Appimage.
Appimage can run on any linux distro.

[notramo]

Maintainance of two packages is hard indeed, but there is an easy solution: create an AppImage, then put the single AppImage executable in a Flatpak package.

[probonopd]

How do I compile this on Ubuntu 14.04 (trusty)? Unfortunately I am seeing some compile-time error:
https://travis-ci.com/probonopd/olive/builds/95682822

[itsmattkc]

@probonopd Olive currently requires FFmpeg 3.4 and won't compile with an older version.

I've had good luck using this PPA on xenial, it seems to have a version for trusty too: https://launchpad.net/~jonathonf/+archive/ubuntu/ffmpeg-3

[probonopd]

Thanks @itsmattkc the build works now.

[eszlari]

Flathub PR: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/794

@itsmattkc Please add a comment on the PR, if you want to have commit access the Olive flatpak repository! (When this PR is accepted and the repo created.)

[barthalion]

@AngryPenguinPL You are spreading so much FUD that it hurts. Both snap and flatpak are actually portable, as opposed to appimage which pulls libraries from host system. I'd be curious to hear which distribution specifically doesn't ship packages for both. Security is also moot point when appimage doesn't offer sandboxing at all. I don't think you know how any of these three tools work at all.

[LeandroStanger]

Flatpak has already been created https://github.com/flathub/org.olivevideoeditor.Olive

[probonopd]

Please also see my pull request that will generate an AppImage:

https://github.com/olive-editor/olive/pull/209

[probonopd]

Both snap and flatpak are actually portable, as opposed to appimage which pulls libraries from host system.

Every time I try Flatpak is not installed and working out of the box on Ubuntu, and snappy is not installed and working out of the box on Fedora. AppImages work on both since there needs to be nothing special installed first.

I'd be curious to hear which distribution specifically doesn't ship packages for both.

Many. And if they do ship them, they tend to be outdated.

Security is also moot point when appimage doesn't offer sandboxing at all.

If you like sandboxing, you can use a sandbox like Firejail. However, I only run software I trust to begin with, and some users want this software to run unencumbered (with full access to the system and no limitations that impede look and feel and usability).

Those application shipping methods have different objectives. Think of AppImage as the equivalent of a Mac .app in a .dmg. One app = one file, simple.

[eszlari]

@itsmattkc If you need help with flatpak, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have!

[notramo]

@barthalion Are Snap and Flatpak portable? How they be used on e.g. a basic Void or Arch Linux installation with basic Xorg after downloading the package, and making it executable?

[probonopd]

Snap and Flatpack require

• Snap and Flatpak to be installed on the system
• The application to be installed on the system

AppImage requires neither.

[barthalion]

@notramo They are portable in the meaning that once you have snap or flatpak installed, nothing else is required from the host distribution. @probonopd conveniently avoids mentioning how AppImage's premise relies on a pipe dream of libraries ensuring stable ABI.

Contrary to what you're trying to do here, it's not the place for such discussions. The issue was about Flatpak and it's been implemented.

[probonopd]

pipe dream of libraries ensuring stable ABI

We should hold library authors accountable to provide ABI stability instead of working around broken ABI - https://media.ccc.de/v/ASG2018-174-2018_desktop_linux_platform_issues

[notramo]

@barthalion Yes, it started to became a flame war about Flatpak vs. AppImage. Since we have both packages now, everybody is happy, so I agree to close it.