32
Chrome/Chromium Experimenting With Flatpak Packaging (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 18 hours ago* by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

An exciting development for this Linux app sandboxing and distribution tech. This would also help improve Google Chrome/Chromium support outside the likes of RPM and Debian based distributions with a cleaner packaging experience.

That's what he said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I’ve been using the Flatpak version of Ungoogled Chromium for a while now (for websites that don’t work natively with Librewolf). Is this really that new?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago

    The main Chrome flatpak currently just installs the official RPM file for Chrome. You're right that the Chromium and Ungoogled Chromium ones do seem to build from source a bit more. I imagine it will just mean a better build process with less patching.

    But you can see exactly what it means right in the ticket:

    • Create chrome/installer/linux/flatpak/ with packaging scripts and templates for metadata, AppStream metainfo, and launcher entrypoint.
    • Add enable_flatpak GN build argument (default false).
    • Add package_format to InstallerConfig and omit host desktop integration artifacts (system desktop files, /usr/bin symlinks, AppStream appdata, GNOME default apps, manpages, and AppArmor profiles) when packaging for Flatpak.
    • Update common/installer.py with Flatpak configuration and App ID mapping for Chromium (org.chromium.Chromium*) and Google Chrome (com.google.Chrome*).
    • Generalize common/desktop.template to support both Flatpak and system-wide desktop execution commands.
    • Disable setuid sandbox and zlib compression for non-official builds.
    • Update BUILD.gn with flatpak packaging targets and aliases.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent