flatpaks vs flathubs

I went to install inkscape flatpak, and see that in Gnome Software there are two versions, one from and other from flathub.
I’ll gladly use fedora’s flatpaks, but would just like to know what is the methodology of packaging/updating them is, are they based on flathub’s packages, do they update as regularly?

Thanks for any help.

I’m not an expert, but what I’ve gleaned from reading is that the flatpaks from the registry are created from the fedora dnf packages. I don’t know what the technical problem is since I haven’t studied it closely, but I have had issues with nearly every single flatpak from there, and hardly ever any issue with flathub. Some issues are small (like theming issues) some bigger (like locale) and some are dealbreakers (last I checked, Epiphany didn’t even work). I go for flathub every time.

1 Like

Thanks for the explanation, I’ll use flathub ones then.

Also, I believe the reason it exists is that Flathub contains proprietary software, so Fedora can’t ship with it.

1 Like

Fedora repositories can’t add propietary stuff. This might seem as simple as just not installing say, skype, but it also means that for example File Roller won’t come with proper .rar support. Same applies to Firefox codecs.

There is also a more complicated issue with the fedora repository, it is a OCI repository. This means that everytime you get an update, it will download the entire container. There is ongoing work to solve this.

I think they update their apps less often. Ultimately, I always use flathub with one exception, GNOME Screenshots, my submission of Screenshots to flathub was rejected :frowning: as it is supposed to be part of the GNOME DE, and only runs on gnome+wayland.


Perhaps some day there will be a way to select a subset of flatpaks from flathub packages, so fedora would install flathub repo by default with only free software.

That day won’t come, Fedora’s policy dictates that it can only provide/host packages built by their infrastructure. On the other hand the buildsystem used by fedora is different from flathub’s so the naive solution, which would be to just copy the flatpak manifest from flathub (when all the code is open), would not work here.

I suppose that once the OCI issue is fixed, it would just amount to more user contributions to match the manifests when possible. But one issue I see is that for example does not allow for issues.