• Are you using Flatpaks?
  • Are you trusting Flathub?
  • Do you bother about the sandboxing and security?
  • TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Are you using Flatpaks?

    Yes, makes Debian desktop perfect. Rock solid base system, all desktop apps updated to the latest and greatest without pollution.

    Are you trusting Flathub?

    Yes BUT… there should be a way to have / manage / install Flatpaks offline like AppImages and/or easy and officially supported ways of archiving the repository into something useful and easy to use.

    Related: https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/4874

    Do you bother about the sandboxing and security?

    Too much security already: https://github.com/flathub/org.keepassxc.KeePassXC/issues/29#issuecomment-559476300 A password manger can’t community with a Browser as it is. This makes both useless and kills one of the best use cases for Flatpak.

    • Perroboc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would love to install a browser, and a password manager through flatpaks but they won’t talk with each other.

      I would get an IDE like visual studio code, through flathub, but it doesn’t talk with the system software I want to develop on.

      I would love to get Steam or any other games as flatpaks but having to redownload mesa and other system files just for that uses a lot of space and feels like a second OS.

      So yeah, I agree with you. It’s awesome! But it has some flaws right now (that I’m sure they’re being worked on)

      • TCB13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes but they solve the cross distro packing problem and that’s neat. The GNOME Software integration is also amazing, those few times when you see that desktop Linux actually can do it. :P

        I just hope for better and easier tools to mange the security / process communication. For me flatpaks are more about finally having a fast and decent way of packing stuff across distros with dependencies than a sandbox / security feature.

        • Perroboc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not against them, at all. I use them extensively. I just wish I could use them for everything!

    • wile_e8@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      FWIW I figured out how to get a password manager (Browserpass, not KeePassXC) to communicate with flatpak Chrome if you want some advice on how to get it to work.

      But yes, it was way more difficult than it should have been (which is “should work out of the box, just like a regular package”). So if you’re just listing some of the shortcomings of flatpak, never mind.

        • wile_e8@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          OK, so I looked though my browser history, and here are some relevant pages I found:

          I don’t remember how much I used each one, but eventually I pieced together enough information information to get the Browserpass extension working in the Google Chrome flatpak. But three of those links are KeePassXC, which should be useful for adapting this for your use.

          The main file that was having problems was the Browserpass Native Messaging Hosts file in my config directory for the Chrome flatpak, ~/.var/app/com.google.Chrome/config/google-chrome/NativeMessagingHosts/com.github.browserpass.native.json. Originally it was a symlink to a file at /usr/lib/browserpass/hosts/chromium/com.github.browserpass.native.json:

          {
              "name": "com.github.browserpass.native",
              "description": "Browserpass native component for the Chromium extension",
              "path": "/usr/bin/browserpass-linux64",
              "type": "stdio",
              "allowed_origins": [
                  "chrome-extension://naepdomgkenhinolocfifgehidddafch/"
              ]
          }
          

          The call to /usr/bin/browserpass-linux64 did not see to work for me, so I ended up making a copy of the file in the NativeMessagingHosts directory and modified it to point to a script in my home mount:

          wile_e8 NativeMessagingHosts $ diff com.github.browserpass.native.json.orig com.github.browserpass.native.json
          4c4
          <     "path": "/usr/bin/browserpass-linux64",
          ---
          >     "path": "/home/wile_e8/.config/browserpass/browserpass.sh",
          
          

          I don’t remember why I picked to do it inside the ~/.config directory, but it worked so I left it. And here is the script I put at ~/.config/browerpass/browserpass.sh:

          #!/bin/sh
          cd ~
          /usr/bin/flatpak-spawn --host /usr/bin/browserpass-linux64 2>/tmp/error.log
          

          I don’t remember how I came up with that script, it must be somewhere in the four links at the top.

          Finally, I needed to use Flatseal to allow access to the script. In the Google Chrome settings, under “Filesystem->Other files”, I added an entry saying ~/.config/browserpass:ro. Also modified from the default in Flatseal, I have “Filesystem->All user files” enabled, along with “Socket->D-Bus session bus” and “Socket->D-Bus system bus”. I don’t know how necessary the last three are, but I’m not messing with it now that I have it working.

          So, that’s what I did to get the Browserpass extension working in the Google Chrome flatpak. You’ll have to modify some things to get it working for KeePassXC, or for Firefox. But that general pattern should work.

          • TCB13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hmm I kind of tried that route before but haven’t gone so far. I’ll check it asap. Thanks!