this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
478 points (98.8% liked)
linuxmemes
20707 readers
910 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, but in the context of flatpak isn't the distribution managed by the developer themselves? Also, in the distro release version case, they usually add something distro specific to differentiate it.
No, most often it's not.
Valve literally just had a fiasco with them not long ago with them falsely marking steam as verified when Valve are not the ones packing the Flatpak.
I'm not sure about specific packages, but in general a packager may not want to increase the upstream version even if they can do it themselves - for example, they may have made some mistake in the packaging process.
Yes, and hence my comment on flatpak which turns out is false (that the upstream developer is usually the distributor/packager too). And the other still applies, distro usually adds a specific tag anyway for their refresh. Like that one time xz on rolling debian was named something x.y.z-really-a.b.c.
I think flatpak packagers should also append the specific tag too if that is the case. Like, x.y.z-flatpak-w where w can be the build release version