Yeah… But then it sucks for anyone not running Arch (btw) or derivative distros. I really don’t have a dog in this merge conflict but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.
but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.
It’s already unpackageable because of the license anyway.
The only “legit” way to get the emulator is their provided AppImage bundle, and nothing else. The author also has a rant about Flatpak being broken and unreliable and refusing to support that, so…
I have some issues with flatpak, myself, but that mainly stems from having trouble finding documentation to clear up how to properly use extensions and non-standard dependencies that are easy to do with OCI images.
Ex. I had a really hard time trying to get Vega Strike built as a flatpak.
Yeah… But then it sucks for anyone not running Arch (btw) or derivative distros. I really don’t have a dog in this merge conflict but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.
It’s already unpackageable because of the license anyway.
The only “legit” way to get the emulator is their provided AppImage bundle, and nothing else. The author also has a rant about Flatpak being broken and unreliable and refusing to support that, so…
I have some issues with flatpak, myself, but that mainly stems from having trouble finding documentation to clear up how to properly use extensions and non-standard dependencies that are easy to do with OCI images.
Ex. I had a really hard time trying to get Vega Strike built as a flatpak.
If it’s only available via appimage, as the reply to this comment states, then it will still run just fine on Arch.
Yeah… That’s pretty terrible. I was meaning packaging patchsets for other distros. Hopefully the GPL-preserving fork is better.
Why is it terrible? Appimages are fine.
Appinages are fine. Needing to apply changes as patchsets rather than just building normally sucks. Especially in deb and rpm distros.