Question about submitting AIMP Linux version to Flathub

[user1-audiophile]

Hi,

I've read some of the discussions about the native Linux version of AIMP and occasionally noticed someone bring the topic of Flatpak.

My understanding is that there are no plans in making an AIMP Flatpak and submitting it to Flathub. (https://flathub.org/en)

My question is, is it ok for AIMP devs if AIMP will be submitted to Flathub unofficially by a third party?
I have experience maintaining Flatpak apps on Flathub and I've already created an AIMP Flatpak on my private Github repo for myself to test, and it works fine.

On Flathub there are 2 types of apps:
Verified (the ones with the blue badge) - These are either maintained by the app developer or by a third party that is officially endorsed by the app developer.
Unverified - These are not officially endorsed by the app developer.

But in order to submit an unverified Flatpak to Flathub, it still needs to be approved by the developer. That's why I asked if you're ok with that.

I think one clear benefit of having AIMP on Flathub is the fact that you won't need to perform updates manually whenever a new version comes out, which is the case with the current .deb .rpm and arch packages.

[Artem]

AIMP cannot work inside app containers. So, it will not work

[user1-audiophile]

Well, as I mentioned, I already made an AIMP Flatpak on my private GitHub repo which works well (I created it out of the existing .deb package).

I've been using it like this for the last couple of days and haven't noticed any issues.

It's mostly just a matter of giving it proper filesystem permissions so it can create config files and access music files/directories in the home directory.

Did I miss any other functionality that might be problematic inside containers?

Otherwise, do you approve if I'll submit AIMP as an unofficial package to Flathub?

[Алексей Долматов]

You might want to leave a link to your GitHub for reference.
In other repositories, users host the player subject to the License and privacy policy .
First of all, the developer needs to know what you are changing in order to complete the part "Limitations".
Secondly, we need to examine how the developer's confirmation (consent) process works. Your request does not cover this stage.
I have briefly reviewed the documentation, but I did not find a complete step-by-step guide for cases where the deployment is initiated by someone other than the developer. There is only a mention that the developer can submit a request if they disagree with the catalog listing.

[Artem]

Well, as I mentioned, I already made an AIMP Flatpak on my private GitHub repo which works well (I created it out of the existing .deb package).

No, it's bad idea. We have already encountered problems with the unofficial AUR build of the player.

[user1-audiophile]

Ok, thanks. Then I guess I won't proceed to submit it to Flathub.

I've read the AIMP EULA provided in the link above and then read the Flathub documentation regarding the proper way to package apps with such EULA licenses and concluded that I need to completely rework my Flatpak manifest (a build recipe file similar to Arch's PKGBUILD) which might be problematic with AIMP specifically.

[DarkDrawKill]

Я не вижу ни одной причины поддержки формата флатпака
Единственная вещь, которая делает AppImage хорошим кандидатом - это возможность хранить приложение на флешке и запускать его где захочешь (в принципе, как на винде)