Standard packaging for linux

[orthecreedence]

Is there a way to do some kind of (verifiable) package-once, run-anywhere for linux, like a windows installer kind of? I've seen OBS, that might be helpful, but really just wondering if there's a standard format I can publish the linux app(s) in that would allow most users to install it seamlessly (without having to package it by hand for each platform).

Research list:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppImage
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snappy_(package_manager)
• https://snapcraft.io/
• https://www.flatpak.org/
• https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm

[naraesk]

Have a look at AppImage and snappy. However, conventional packages are more convenient for the user

[orthecreedence]

@naraesk Exactly what I was looking for, thank you. I think people have had enough of a problem with the tarball releases that something more common would be a step up (although, OS-specific packages would be the best, eventually).

[taw00]

Honestly, natively built and packaged applications are the most "correct" route to take, and are the most robust ultimately. Related, I have started building RPMs: https://github.com/taw00/turtl-rpm

As for a container-ish format, AppImage, if you had to pick one, is the route to take. It doesn't have, last I looked, a codified method of updating it though. An AppImage is a more "dumb" design. But it works and hence it's popularity... They require little to no other software to be installed. Alas, updating AppImages is not as "out of the box" automate-able as are Snaps or Flatpaks or natively built packages.

Snap is okay, though there has been a host of issues with its reliability on platforms that are not Ubuntu. Plus Canonical controls the snap repositories... which makes me always steer clear (philosophically). Like Flatpak, you have to first install snap support (snapd), then you can install a snap.

Flatpak is superior to Snap IMHO and is tied to Fedora/Red Hat as in they are a major contributor, but is wholly independent from any vendor. Of the three, Flatpak is better designed as a general format, more independent, and it works everywhere. But... you have to (may have to) first install flatpak, then the application (two steps, like snap, if Turtl is your first flatpak).

So, the long and short of it: AppImage is the most idiot-proof. Flatpak is the better option technically and is better supported as compared to snap. And, in the end, natively built packages are ideal, but ... "the ideal" takes more work and/or volunteers and may lead to inconsistent quality.

[x80486]

Looking at the instructions here, the first thing to be able to build a Flatpak is to have a release of turtl/core-rs 😎

Also, it would be great to have a way to build the desktop app just by using a single npm task, something like npm run release-linux, otherwise I guess the Makefile will need to be modified heavily – but I'm not sure about this yet 😉

[ShamrockLee]

I'm trying to build a Nix package for turtl/desktop.
Which versions of turtl/js and turtl/core-rs will be used in a new turtl/desktop release?
Should we use the latest turtl/js release (v0.6.3) or the latest commit on master?
There's no releases/tags for turtl/core-rs. Which commit should be used? Is there a version number?