Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Flag for Flatpak-only #1076

Closed
cassidyjames opened this issue Sep 18, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1994
Closed

Flag for Flatpak-only #1076

cassidyjames opened this issue Sep 18, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1994

Comments

@cassidyjames
Copy link
Contributor

@sysrich had expressed interest at GUADEC in using a Flatpak-only AppCenter for a project he was working on. It could be useful to provide a flag to disable the PackageKit backend and only talk to Flatpak.

@Conan-Kudo
Copy link

If the AppCenter backends (PackageKit and Flatpak) were structured as plugins, it'd be very easy to just partition it out and ship variations that have it and don't have it. This is how GNOME Software and Plasma Discover do it, and that makes it a lot easier to deal with the variation without building it differently each time.

@tetebueno
Copy link

tetebueno commented May 5, 2020

In order to mitigate this in the meantime, is there a way to tell if an application is being offered by Flatpak in plain sight?

@cassidyjames
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tetebueno currently if the app is only offered via Flatpak (or the non-Flatpak source has a non-matching ID, meaning we can't associating them), you can see an (i) icon next to the install size because Flatpak sizes are estimates that don't fully take into account the diff-based nature of their downloads. It's not ideal (or intended to be the way to identify Flatpaks), but it works at the moment.

Fixing #233 might also help better expose the source when only one exists.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants