• BRINGit34@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    I mean this seems reasonable especially with how quickly flatpaks are becoming so common.

    I’m sure this wouldn’t happen for a very long time though

  • secret300@lemmy.sdf.org
    1·
    2 months ago

    That’s just plain dumb. I usually don’t install rpm packages with the store but I frequently update my system from it. If they remove rpm support then they remove a huge ease of use feature.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Please don’t. I like having options, sometimes RPMs are useful, sometimes Flatpaks are useful. Let me choose.

  • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    But why? It’s job is to install software, why make it worse by supporting less package formats?

    • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
      1·
      2 months ago

      But why?

      Probably because having two separate dependency management solutions can lead to a lot of needless headaches.

      And it makes particular sense for Gnome to switch over, since Gnome is focused on user space apps. Flatpaks should generally be more relevant and lower risk, long term, since they don’t require root privileges to install.

    • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      While I prefer Debian packages, what’s wrong with Flatpaks other than a bit of bloat caused by redundant dependencies? They’re not Snaps.

      • zipping2583@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        They acutally use deduplication. So if there is a package needed in e.g. 10 different flatpaks it will not take 10x the space on the drive.

          • zipping2583@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 months ago

            It was mentioned in a podcast from the linux cast - there was actually a guy (I believe he works for gnome) and he cleaned up with some prejudices about flatpaks. One of them being that they consume too much space on disk ;)