@sir One of the major features of Flatpak is using container technology to make sure no matter the distro, the package is running in the same environment as the developer's machine, so there is no need to "tune for the environment."
For the anti-feature point, if you have problems with the source, you should fork it, not pretend you are distributing the app while in reality you are distributing something else.

@cagatayy @sir Hate to bang the Guix/Nix pan all the time (no i don't) but what you want is reproducable packages/environments, not containers.

@grainloom I know it has been a long time but I didn't have a chance to look to Nix/Guix documentation until today. I wrote something with my limited understanding of Nix/Guix (and actually Flatpak too) that may be useful to compare:

@cagatayy hmmm, it doesn't look like it adds anything that Guix can't do, at least for libre/open packages.
conflicting versions are already taken care of in Guix, and you also get reproducable builds and a lot of tooling.

@grainloom Can Guix do sandboxing? If not, I think that would be an important advantage.
For conflicting versions, reproducable builds and tooling (if you mean the environment part) I think they are equal.

@cagatayy i doubt they are equal in reproducability, guix can give you a full graph of the inputs for any package, all the way to the bootstrap binaries.


for tooling, i also have my doubts. declarative system configs are very cool. right now i'm debugging a wacom udev confif issue and i can do it in a vm by just running `guix system vm` on the config file i used to install the system. it barely takes up any space.
and i could then send this file to someone and they could test the exact same system config.
AFAIK this is not a goal of Flatpak & co.

· brutaldon · 0 · 0 · 1
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Cybrespace is an instance of Mastodon, a social network based on open web protocols and free, open-source software. It is decentralized like e-mail.