Flatpak Update question

Ask Fedora Ask in English
,
1

On my latest execution of “flatpak update” I received the following message:

[root@odyssey: ~ ]
SU: # flatpak update
Looking for updates…
Info: org.gnome.Platform//42 is end-of-life, with reason:
   The GNOME 42 runtime is no longer supported as of March 21, 2023. Please ask your application developer to migrate to a supported platform.
Applications using this runtime:
   io.github.Qalculate, org.gnome.FontManager


        ID                               Branch Op Remote  Download
 1. [✓] com.mattjakeman.ExtensionManager stable u  flathub 21.3 kB / 718.6 kB

Updates complete.
[root@odyssey: ~ ]
SU: #

and am not sure what action I need to take. Any help appreciated!

2

I’ve got the same message:

[piotr@thinkpad-e480 ~]$ flatpak update
Looking for updates…

Info: runtime org.gnome.Platform branch 42 is end-of-life, with reason:
The GNOME 42 runtime is no longer supported as of March 21, 2023. Please ask your application developer to migrate to a supported platform.
Info: applications using this runtime:
io.github.Qalculate

Nothing to do.
[piotr@thinkpad-e480 ~]$

We can either (a) keep using Qalculate with an unsupported GNOME version hoping that the developer fixes that in near future or else (b) uninstall Qalculate and reinstall it some different way rather than via Flatpak.

3

or (c) do your part as the message asked of you:

Please ask your application developer to migrate to a supported platform.

Someone has already opened an issue for Font Manager. You could do the same for Qalculate.

FYI, these Flathub package repos can be found by searching Flathub.org for the app, e.g. https://flathub.org/apps/details/io.github.Qalculate, then clicking See details under Publisher. This is different from the source repo of the software itself, and the original developers may not be the ones maintaining the Flathub package.

4

As stated in the licence:

BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

In other words, the program is provided in its current state, without any guarantees or warranties, and it is the responsibility of the end-users, rather than the software provider, to cover any expenses related to maintenance, repairs, or corrections that may be required.

1 Like
5

Wait, in addition to rpm-ostree update, do I also have periodically run a flatpak update command? I thought they either got updated with the system, or automatically with the Software application.

flatpak update
sudo fwupdmgr refresh; sudo fwupdmgr get-updates; sudo fwupdmgr update
6

Well, I don’t know how Software works (I’ve never used it :joy:). I’ve written this simple script, placed it in $HOME/.local/bin/ and named it as silverup. I just type silverup in the terminal to update most things I use.

#!/usr/bin/env bash

echo "rpm-ostree update"
rpm-ostree update

echo ""
echo "flatpak update"
flatpak update

echo ""
echo "cargo updater -u"
cargo updater -u
1 Like
7

You can update flatpak through Gnome Software. flatpak update is the manual, command line way to do it.

8

I’m not sure the license precludes one from opening an issue, however it would seem the developer has already committed an update to use the GNOME 44 runtime and should I think be available soon.

1 Like
9

The license has nothing to do with filing a bug. It merely precludes filing a legal action if the program fails to do what is promised or anticipated.

Filing a bug or otherwise communicating with the developer is the normal way (and always has been) to let the developer know that the program is not performing in a way that is expected or to ask for other changes. I am not sure why @piotr even posted that, because it has nothing to do with the current discussion other than to inform one that there is no legal recourse available.

Communication is the tool to use when one believes changes are needed.

10

@computersavvy , I posted that in response to the @jn64 's response to my first post. @jn64 assumes that it is “our part” to contact the developer reporting bugs and the like. But, why would I ever bother the developer if the GPLv2 licence, chosen by the developer herself, is quite explicit stating with CAPITAL LETTERS that all necessary servicing, repair or correction is the responsibility of the end user, not the developer? :frowning_with_open_mouth: This licence is from June 1991, it is much older than GitHub with its system of bug reporting and perhaps does not reflect the present spirit of the open-source community. I don’t know how the community worked in early 1990s. But, using some software we accept the terms under which it is licensed, and I’d say this particular licence discourages reporting bugs. There are so many problems with the GLPv2 licence I personally never choose it for software development and prefer MIT, UPL-1.0, Apache-2.0 or BSD-3-Clause, which for so many reasons are more community-friendly.

11

This is off topic, but most assuredly it is the case that communication is not banned by the license. The license protects the developer from liability lawsuits, not from communication.

Most developers encourage communication so they do have the feedback and can adjust their software to better serve the community. It is then up to the developer if they wish to respond to users requests, comments, problems, etc. After all how does a developer know if the product is doing as expected (or not) if feedback is banned?

Almost every license has similar terms in the FOSS community and most of the proprietary software has terms that limit liability as well.

Here is an example from the Apache 2.0 license found here.

7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor 
provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, 
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, 
without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, 
MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for 
determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks 
associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.

8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including 
negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and 
grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for damages, 
including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character 
arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the Work (including but not 
limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any 
and all other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor has been advised of the 
possibility of such damages.

Does Apache or any other developer prevent users from providing feedback? I think not!

12

And this is why the Apache 2.0 licence is better than GNU General Public License, version 2. Both “preclude filing a legal action if the program fails to do what is promised or anticipated” as you said, but in contrast to the GPLv2, Apache-2.0 does not state
“THE ENTIRE RISK ASTO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.”

13

I believe you are focused on that term and ignoring the entirety of the license in its meaning.
Wording may be different and changes as the versions are updated but the overall meaning is the same. The user accepts the software as-is and has no legal recourse against the developer should his needs or expectations not be exactly met.

BTW,
Since the part you quoted is from the GPL license, do you consider that it prevents everyone from suggesting improvements or fixes to all software that is released under that license?

Please take all further comments on licensing to a different venue.

14

Jeff, it’s an off-topic and just let’s leave it. The terms are clear and I read legal documents literally; each single sentence matters and is placed in the document for a reason. The licence is explicit stating with capital letters that it is the end-user who assumes the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction of the software. This statement is specific to the GPLv2 licence, and missing in e.g., MIT, UPL-1.0, Apache-2.0 or BSD-3-Clause.

It doesn’t prevent me from contacting the developer but in case of the GPLv2 licence, why would I bother him/her?

I stop commenting in this thread. :wink:

15

Didn’t mean to start a raucous but just merely needed to know if there was any action needed by me. Flatpak is fairly new at least to me and only recently found out that I needed to run flatpak update to get updates. As far as it being gnome or some other developer I have no knowledge as to how to contact them to report.

What is interesting is that through this thread I find that there may be more update I need to be running (ie, rpm-ostree, fwupdmgr). Could someone comment on the proper procedures to maintain a system up to date .

16

For Fedora Workstation, you can simply use the Software app which covers everything, or dnf, flatpak, and fwupdmgr.

For Fedora Silverblue, you can also simply use Software. If you prefer to use the terminal, you should read both Getting Started and Updates, Upgrades & Rollbacks to understand how rpm-ostree works as it is not just a different command, but fundamentally different from dnf due to the nature of the immutable OS.

1 Like
17

What is the difference between rpm-ostree update and rpm-ostree upgrade? I’ve been using the former to keep my system up to date.

18

I see this

$ rpm-ostree update --help
Usage:
  rpm-ostree update [OPTION…]

Alias for upgrade

That seems the same as dnf where update is an alias for upgrade.

1 Like
19

Exactly. “update” is a silent option linked back to upgrade for muscle memory backwards compatibility. At one time yum update and upgrade did something very slightly different (upgrade added --obsoletes), but update and upgrade now do the same thing for both dnf and rpm-ostree.

1 Like