HyperForum — Flatpak issues

Re: Flatpak issues

null@example.com (zapper) — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 19:39:08 +0000

throgh wrote:

Besides all that flatpak itself does not present other repositories and only their main one first. So also here: If I need first to replace that or modify it afterwards further, the software itself does not leave a clear choice and is not presenting that to me as user. Further more and more projects conclude flatpak as prioritized way of distribution, which is leaving the question: Who in fact cared most of backporting and patching? The point is clear as upstream only does updates but not often backports. That work, including further modifications, is done by system-distributions and upstream also does not care really about distributions going on. Focus only are the bigger ones, not small projects. That's out of the same reasoning why Hyperbola does not bother with such packages like flatpak.
Hope that clarifies a bit more and help.

Also, flatpak... doesn't it have a lot of bad dependencies? So even if we ignored what you just said, I think polkit, pam, avahi, or something systemdish or similar probably is required to build from source anyhow.

Which in this case, means that it isn't possible anyhow without adding crap to Hyperbola.

Another words, even without your arguments, its still not happening for those reasons as well.

Re: Flatpak issues

null@example.com (throgh) — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 12:13:09 +0000

Hello and welcome to the forums. I first thought not to answer but now concluded perhaps giving a better insight may help for a better understanding also: When I as a user need first to configure a repository NOT to transmit non-free (or foremost non-free) software, then this repository has one elementary first issue as it does not clearly transmit free software but is somewhat vague and mixed. Hyperbola as system does not include such software, besides we also do not incluce flatpak as we decline package-management aside: It bears - as already mentioned here in the thread - the risk of unknown licensed software being installed and the user has neither a chance to look into nor is presented the details. This leads up to the point that people / users / developers do no longer really care of a software being free (clearly) or more vague or even worse.

Besides all that flatpak itself does not present other repositories and only their main one first. So also here: If I need first to replace that or modify it afterwards further, the software itself does not leave a clear choice and is not presenting that to me as user. Further more and more projects conclude flatpak as prioritized way of distribution, which is leaving the question: Who in fact cared most of backporting and patching? The point is clear as upstream only does updates but not often backports. That work, including further modifications, is done by system-distributions and upstream also does not care really about distributions going on. Focus only are the bigger ones, not small projects. That's out of the same reasoning why Hyperbola does not bother with such packages like flatpak.

Hope that clarifies a bit more and help.

Re: Flatpak issues

null@example.com (impromptux) — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 09:43:52 +0000

After reading a few more articles about Flatpak, it seems that it relies on D-Bus for several features and D-Bus goes against Hyperbola philosophy.

Re: Flatpak issues

null@example.com (Allen123456hello) — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 09:35:41 +0000

I think Hyperbola will not package software for external package-management as "there will be never any kind of control which kind of licensed dependency is loaded and installed."

Flatpak issues

null@example.com (impromptux) — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 09:23:32 +0000

Hello everyone,
Currently, Hyperbola doesn't include Flatpak for the following reason:
> The project itself would bring up another way to distribute software, but as there is no source available without non-free packages and also no restriction to be implemented: Possible non-free dependencies and software would be then provided direct on the system.
https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id … 0framework
But that's wrong, the Flathub, the main Flatpaks packages repertory indicate that it is possible to configure Flatpak with "flatpak remote-add --if-not-exists --subset=verified_floss flathub-verified-floss https://flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo" so it only include FLOSS softwares.

It is not perfect as a few softwares such as Only Office are marked as free even if they are not. However, a lot of FLOSS softwares are now using only Flapak as an official way to install them.