http://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/introduction.html#reasons-to-use-flatpak
https://github.com/flathub/flathub/wiki/App-Submission
LeandroStanger
All 8 comments
We already distribute RPCS3 as AppImage as far as Linux builds go. There's no reason to switch to FlatPaks as the AppImage is working properly.
AniLeo
on 8 May 2019
Added Discussion tag, it's expected reasons to switch from AppImage to FlatPak bundling are provided since the links above don't do any sort of comparison between the two but only mention the advantages of using an approach like this over the standard per distro bundling, otherwise there's obviously no reason to switch over.
AniLeo
on 10 May 2019
AFAIK Flatpak doesn't offer any significant advantages over AppImage that would benefit RPCS3 and, in fact, has several 'benefits' that may be considered detrimental in this case.
For your reference:
https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/Similar-projects#comparison
Relsig
on 12 May 2019
Well , AppImage works great as of now. No need to change imo. Only if Rpcs3 Appimage's had Rpcs3 logo...
Leopard1907
on 12 May 2019
I am Endless OS user only Flatpak is supported
LeandroStanger
on 12 May 2019
Afaik you can run appimages on Endless OS just fine.
Supporting Flatpak would be the same as making .deb or .rpm packages because that's the "standard" of some distributions, it wouldn't make much sense.
RipleyTom
on 12 May 2019
Closing since appimages are already supported.
kd-11
on 4 Jul 2019
Where can I find information on how rpcs3 is packaged into a snap image?
osirase
on 16 Jun 2020
Related issues
Xcedf
路
3Comments
iBlackS0ul
路
3Comments
JohnGodgames
路
3Comments
elad335
路
3Comments
uaqlover
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
Afaik you can run appimages on Endless OS just fine.
Supporting Flatpak would be the same as making .deb or .rpm packages because that's the "standard" of some distributions, it wouldn't make much sense.