#25

It doesn’t work for me. I have tried it with the flatpak from the Fedora Registry.

#26

You are correct. I thought it was originally but after carefully reading the description at the Fedora wiki I realized that it is analogous to the FreeDesktop Runtime, that is subtly different.

#27

Seems Mozilla are working on creating an official Flatpak for Flathub publication now (progress tracked in a new bugzilla thread).

(Looking forward to this. Really want to ditch layered Chrome entirely, but codecs are holding me back. If this can get working nightlies back too, that would be amazing.)

#28

About time…

Work on this by Fedora seems on and off. People got really active all of a sudden and now once again almost 2 weeks without any news. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Them choosing Flathub is a real plus for a united community though. All these organizations like Fedora, Endless and others creating their own repository is just not helping…

#29

There’s generally a lot to be done, and a lot of it also depends on Mozilla doing their own backend work, e.g. recently there was the wait for their backend infrastructure to be set up to automatically build Flatpaks.

At minimum, Endless has involvement with the upstream Flatpak, and I’d believe Fedora does as well.

#30

It’s not just the delays from waiting on internal infrastructure changes. The last comment is a month ago, which discusses permission settings in the Flatpak manifest. That post is full of questions, which seem kind of fundamental and haven’t even been replied to. So either they took the discussion to a direct chat, or all involved are working on other stuff again.

I’d expect the manifest itself to be figured out by now and this just being about getting the CI/CD workflow implemented. I’d also expect Mozilla to make Flatpak a major priority, since:

  1. Application sandboxing will contribute to better security and this is kind of important for webbrowsers; and
  2. When they have Flatpak and Snap they could easily get rid of RPM’s, DEB’s and other Linux package formats and declare these the only two supported ways to run Firefox on all Linux distributions, which would probably simplify their CI/CD, testing, packaging, distribution and support significantly and permanently!

Or is this just me…?

1 Like
#31

@toMeloos Totally agreed. But I think as Mozilla is on it’s downfall they try to squeez stuff out of the various snap flatpak blocks (the last replies are from people related to flatpak) in indirect or implied form whether in material or intellectual form.
A friend who is not technical (previously Mac now Windows user) at all I mentioned “Firefox”.
The reply you get is: “Wasn’t this the old browser? The one before Chrome?”.
And I have to say it’s very accurate.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/15/mozilla-lays-off-70-as-it-waits-for-subscription-products-to-generate-revenue/

But I would be more than happy to have a legacy browser ready to install via flatpak. (equally happy about firefox as flatpak or internet explorer as a flatpak, a real benefit would be to have “current” browser availalble as flatpak) #Lowzilla

#32

Mozilla Firefox is the current browser. Google’s Chrome is proprietary
software. So is Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, which does not run on GNU/
Linux.

#33

Than there was chromium. Usage statistics are the most valueable thing to indicate what the current browser is. And I actually tried to switch to Firefox a couple of months ago, I gave it a go for a month. No way. Hope you don’t work for them!

#34

Please all stop getting off-topic. Let’s not start this silly off-topic discussion about “What is the best browser” or “I use this browser, because…”. And talking about what is “current” is ridiculous.

I’ve reported these posts as off-topic, maybe they can be split or so.

This thread here is, by it’s title, about H264 and other codecs that e.g. do have problems in the Fedora Flatpak Firefox.

#35

I have allowed @JohnMH, and @damianatorrpm comments to remain up, even though they are definitely off topic. I will take the opportunity to remind them here that this is a community forum which is intended as a benefit to the Community in general, and particularly those using Fedora products. It is important for all of us to exercise restraint and general decorum when engaging in this community, show others the respect you feel you deserve. Most importantly, in a discussion, stay on topic as that topic is the point of the discussion. And definitely don’t hijack threads to push your opinions/preferences/dislikes/prejudices/ etc… onto others. Please, if you feel strongly about something to the point it bothers you enough to interject about it at any opportunity, then by all means start a thread about that gripe.

#36

@kalev
Is there any news regarding these YouTube comments?

I think firefox flatpak could “see” flathub’s ffmpeg runtime when installed, to enable videos/ livestreams on firefox flatpak …

Ohh, that’s a great idea! I am not sure if flathub ffmpeg is supposed to be ABI compatible with Fedora runtime, but I’ll talk to Alex next week and see if we can do something.

#37

Please keep in mind that this is a Fedora forum, where the influence of the
Four Foundations is not lost. Fedora consists of Free Software, not
proprietary software, which is off-topic.

#38

Guys let’s just hope Mozilla gets their official Flatpak builds completed and published on Flathub as soon as possible. Heck, I’m even hoping for an official Google Chrome one. Everything else is indeed for a different discussion.

#39

In case someone missed it, Firefox is coming to Flathub: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/firefox-flatpak-on-flathub-beta/17878

The questions remains though. Should all apps requiring additional codecs be replaced with Flathub-Flatpaks or will there be some way to get 3rd-party-codecs into the Fedora-runtime?

#41

The Firefox flatpak has now arrived - and this question is still valid. The released version of Firefox flatpak is working well for me - but - I have a bunch of layered codec’s installed from rpmfusion. And these require extra handling when re-basing Silverblue versions and make that process a lot less seamless.

1 Like
#42

You will have to attach them only once to base image. They will be updated automagically with new images :wink:

#43

Hi @pasqdnik. Yes I assumed that was how it would work but when I re-based from Silverblue 31 to the 32 Beta I and others hit an issue (Fedora 32 pre-beta (including issues & workarounds)). Probably (hope) it will go bit smoother with released versions of Silverblue and the RPMFusion repos.

#44

Is there a post, or do you have some notes? on how you got codecs working on Silverblue? I am thinking of migrating from Workstation 32 to Silverblue 33 after release and codecs one of the things I haven’t sorted out yet.

#45

There are flatpaks of some common codecs (see Codecs and other functional overlays) along with the Firefox flatpak from Flathub, which also has some built-in codecs. Up side of this approach is that you may not need to use rpm-ostree to layer the rpm-fusion repos, which will make re-basing Silverblue versions even more seamless.