Talk:Flatpak

“Rationale” section
Is a section named “Rationale” appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a software product? Particularly when it seems like it would better fit in an article about the technology itself, i.e. Application virtualization. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I’ve merged that section with the lead and removed an unsourced “Technical” section, and now the article seems rather too short to be split into sections. So now it’s not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No points for the removal of unsourced sections & crippling the article from its context: this removing, crippling is simple and no contribution to WP. Adding sources, context and good content is a contribution, not what you are doing. Now a reader can't understand what this is about... *sigh* Shaddim (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The removal of unsourced content is in line with policy. If you think the removed content was valuable, simply cite RSes that support it. Verifiability is mandatory. Don’t like it? Don’t use Wikipedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this article could really use some independent reliable sources to establish notability. Does Flatpak have significant coverage in sources unrelated to the project or those who use it? If it’s notable enough to have an article, it does, and we should use those sources. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is mandatory." absolutely, I'm fully behind the this strong WP concept, for **constructs (controversial, perosnal stuff) which require** them. Not every sentence. On reliability, we had this discussion before and your overfocus on your overlystrict interpretation of "reliable sources" is of little benefit for WP (while you confess yourself you are weak in research... I would really like to introduce that only the one who contributes is allowed to remove....). Shaddim (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You’re contradicting policy: All content must be verifiable. The same section details precisely who is responsible for research. And yes, we had that discussion about reliability, and Whether you like it or not, your vision does not agree with the current consensus even among those participants. So stop it. Seriously. Either get people talking about it (e.g. at WP:VPP or WT:V) and agreeing with your view, or stop it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not agree on your excessive interpretation of verifiability & reliabilty (while throwing links to policies around which might look like backing but it does not), also I disagree with your excessive enforcement of your position which is not consensus but just your policy interpretation. Please stop that. Your interpretation is on on extrem border my on is on the other end. Please leave articles alone a work, you seems to randomly follow me and disturb the work I try to do while you seems not to have a constrcutive focus or article domain. Could you not start to try to create an new article & fill it? this is fun, try it.
 * Shaddim (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that’s it. Let’s settle this. Since you have yet to do so, I’m starting a community discussion. Keep an eye on WP:VPP (update: WP:VPP). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm having difficulty following the discussion above as it doesn't seem to concretely relate to any sources or content in particular. The IP above removed major LWN sources discussing the technology. I went ahead and restored a bit of the technical content and sources. If you have a quibble about how these sources are used, feel free to rewrite the content a bit differently to reflect what the sources say about them - clearly these sources have a lot to say. Also, as encyclopedia editors, it is not our job to extract quotes. There is some flexibility in reporting what sources say about something. In addition, since we're in the open-source world, I think it's reasonable to use their publications rather than looking exclusively to print media. Of course that's up for discussion, but it's a discussion that should be had among editors in technology areas rather than being driven by dogma. II  | (t - c) 05:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * exactly, our work of creating a encyclopedia should be guided by pragmatism, not dogmatism. We have (and should have) flexibility as authors. Shaddim (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I did rewrite the content. The current second paragraph (which I think you restored) was rewritten into the middle of the first paragraph. It looks like you also added a bit about the history of sandboxing; wouldn’t it better fit in a broader article about that, rather than an article about a particular implementation? Or am I misreading the source or something? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WIllis's article and Poettering's proposal were specifically about this implementation, so some discussion of it definitely belongs here. Not sure I saw your rewrite, let me know if there's duplication. Not sure what the background on snapd is - that sort of popped up out of nowhere, without as much background as flatpak. There are other sandboxing technologies - for example, I played around with subuser which uses Docker. Feel free to add more content to sandboxing article. II  | (t - c) 00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Other distro-agnostic systems
This paragraph seems like it should go in an article about distribution-agnostic packaging, not an article about an individual solution. Also, the writing kinda devolves toward the end.

"Distribution-agnostic packaging formats for the Linux ecosystem were proposed multiple times before Flatpak. In the early 2000s autopackage was started, in 2004 klik, which was also the inspiration for Alexander Larsson's precursor packaging project glick in 2007. klik has evolved until 2014 into AppImage, with the goal of distro-agnostic portable upstream packaging. Canonical released in 2016 with snap also a packaging format for the broader linux ecosystem, which supports like Flatpak a centralized appstore digital distribution and update model."

Thoughts? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, your quest for removal of content is annoying. "Alternative" sections have a good tradition in wikipedia. Please refrain in future from removing them. Instead improve and add content, like your suggested creation of an article "distribution-agnostic packaging", I would cheer you for doing so. Shaddim (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if that topic is notable enough for an article. And I’m not great at research, so I generally leave that to those who are. "Alternative" sections have a good tradition in wikipedia. Examples? I don’t think I’ve seen a FA or GA listing historical examples of a category that does not have its own article. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any, of course, but could you show me? Also, I don’t think 2016 was “before Flatpak.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I assure you I will not revert or delete. Shaddim (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All right—find some usable high-level sources, and I’ll try and write up a draft from them. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I you do that I applaud you. Shaddim (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let’s take this discussion to my Talk page, shall we? Post the information about the sources there, if you would, and I’ll have a go at it. I’m not convinced you’ll be able to find anything about the subject as a whole, but I’m game if you do. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (it is really horrible how EASY deletion is: you just can do it with on click and than shift the burden of work and defense again on me: "prove that this" ... after other authors invested countless time in research and formulation and created... this is the core reason why WP loss authors... the arrogance of th deleting authors who can give themselves the feeling of importance by trampling with weight but little value on the contributing ones... its easier and more rewarding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The burden is, and always has been, on the editor who adds the information. Yes, it’s easy to delete unverified information; it’s almost as easy to add it, to make claims that may or may not be true but that’s someone else’s problem. And I don’t think you get to complain about countless hours of research if there is no sign of that effort in terms of citations to what you researched. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

+1 for the alternative section. I think that's a more lightweight alternative than creating a new article on these systems at this point. II | (t - c) 05:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for this voice of reason. Feel free to re-add it we have an consensus. Shaddim (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If Flatpak is the only such system of note, then sure, and we should probably make that redlink a redirect. But if we have this many notable alternatives, doesn’t it kind of deserve its own article? Or is this the only one of these that anyone really uses? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say it would be beneficial for WP to have an own article. But, the argumentation that we "could have more content" (AK own article) can't logical lead to the conclusion, "therefore, we reduce the info, let's delete it now...maybe someone will add somewhere else." Which is also normally not the case, as this is work (unlike deletion). Especially no one is willing to do it under the current persistent threat of eagle eying editors of your liking who like to track WP constantly for "non-notable" content, as easy target for self-rewarding deletion activities. Therefore, my suggestion is, to fullfill the overarching aim of a creation of a WP": keep an alternative section until a own article is created and then move or merge. Shaddim (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal attacks about editors who act in good faith in ways you don’t personally approve of. I didn’t remove this paragraph for shits and giggles. I removed it because I thought it doesn’t belong here, not unless Flatpak is historically the de facto standard, and maybe not even then. It would make sense for Microsoft Word to have a paragraph or even a section about alternatives and competition in the word processor space (by the way, it doesn’t have that), because Word is the clear industry leader. It would not make sense for Nisus Writer or Scrivener (software) to have such a paragraph.  So yes, I think this information does belong in Wikipedia. But I do not think it belongs in an article about Flatpak or any other single software project. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP has an tradition of "see also" sections (AKA "similar stuff" "or "alternatives"). "[what] belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." -> we have freedom. And, we have already another author who sees a value in an alternative section. Shaddim (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don’t think we should discuss them in this particular article, but no objections to listing them under . —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Distribution-agnostic packaging is not a widely-used term, with only 142 Google search results. Altho there are synonyms that could be rolled into such an article, it does expose us to questions about bringing in content which is clearly about such a topic without using that particular term... II | (t - c) 00:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, as the threshold for article crreation gets higher and higher and we struggle already to keep content in articles: can we agree that this material can be preserved as an alternative section, a pragmatic solution inside the idea of WP (backed by for instance the "see also" tradition)? Shaddim (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you were proposing listing them under ? I see no problem with that, but now I’m not clear on what you’re suggesting. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "See also" are typically unformatted lists, quite ugly and unfocussed. I propose a section of very similar intend but with proper prose and structure, called "Alternatives". AKA the original proposal. Shaddim (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I oppose this proposal for the reasons I’ve already given. If such a section belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article about the technological concept; the scope of this article is narrower than that. Incidentally, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “See also” that wasn’t formatted with . —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But if you choose to go ahead with it, we need more sources than the version copied here, and a rewrite. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “See also” " -> exactly, therefore I called the superior, more sepcific version "alternative". But if you prefer the less specific, more ugly version to prove your point.... Shaddim (talk)
 * You misunderstand. You claimed that "See also" sections are typically unformatted, such as your list of URLs on another Talk page before I cleaned them up. I have never seen such a section. The only ones I've seen include formatted lists, i.e.  (occasionally missing the description).  I am not preferring a standard article section "to prove my point" (but if you suspect this to be the case, I encourage you to file a report at WP:ANI). I prefer it because, once again, I do not believe that this is the place for such broad discussion, just like Ewok is not the place to discuss the other various alien species of Star Wars. — on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't side step and try to delay a decision needlessly by expanding the scope. The topic here is very focussed on: adding an alternative section in this artilce, I made my case, we have support for that, while you seems to have only your gut which tells you "doesn't belong here" which is not good enough against consensus. If you won't bring up an policy I will step forward and re-add. Shaddim (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanding the scope? You lost me. My concern here is that you are attempting to expand the scope of this article. The subject of Flatpak is very narrow in scope, compared to the subject of implementations of application virtualization which can on a range of Linux variants. The subject of this article is one implementation, and I have yet to see a compelling reason to expand the scope to the whole software category. Have you considered broader subjects for which such discussion would be in scope? Perhaps Application virtualization or Package management? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't too involved in this topic. , perhaps you could start on article on this topic? If you're feeling nervous, you could keep it in draft space first. , maybe you could help him. II | (t - c) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * i would like to start but i don't believe it could Be defended against exessive requirements applied and enforced by 67.14.236.50. As intermediate solution for collecting and sources material (and creation of an article on critical mass) i still suggest an "see also/impact/ alternative section" there is no formal problem in having such sections if authors want that. Shaddim (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My “excessive requirements” amount to nothing more than Wikipedia’s own standards. If you think the subject is notable enough for an article, and if you think we could have that article stay verifiable and on topic, then go for it, and I’ll do what I can to improve it. Like II suggested, we could work on a draft, which would be clearly marked as a work in progress. Or we could incorporate the information into an existing article, as I suggested just above. Otherwise, there’s always Wikia, whose standards are only as strict as the creator of the wiki; you could start your own wiki and have no requirements, if you wanted. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, exactly therefore I propose a more pragmatic approach a alterantive section to not waste this reader-valuable content and context description. Which is fully inside our policies. We ARE encouraged to discuss, impact, reception, competitors, and alternatives in a reception or similar sections (see my "see also" argumentation)! We ARE NOT LIMITED & exactly defined in the breath and depth of an article's content! Your personal gut feeling that this went beyond the scope of this article, is that, is your personal gut feeling which you try to support with vague policy references, which didn't apply here. We have two authors who think this belongs. If you can't find stronger arguments and fitting policies I will step forward and add. Shaddim (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (PS: you are very welcome to start to create a new article. If you have succeeded in creation, we might discuss if a redundancy reduction and linking to this article with removal here is a viable approach. BUT NOT BEFORE! We have WP:PRESERVE) Shaddim (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop making references to the straw man of my “gut feeling.” I have never made any such claims about my gut feeling. If you disagree with the logic of my arguments, then argue the logic, not imagined feelings. It frankly seems like an excuse to avoid even considering my points. Besides, Wikipedia has plenty of precedence for trusting editors’ guts, so it’s not even something to dismiss out of hand even if that was my argument. And I’ll ask again: why would the examples of a software category fit better here than in an article about that software category, such as Package management or Application virtualization? Why not discuss the various implementations in there? That seems the more logical and obvious place for such information. So why not simply merge this content into an existing article? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you argue that this contetn could be also discussed somewhere else. Which is by itself not reason for removal here at all: "Redundancy or overlapping contetn is NOT a problem at all". Only that your gut advises you this contetn should be somehwere else is irrelevant as more authors beleive this is relevant here. Also, you are allowed to bring the contetn somewhere else, no one will stop you. Go for it. But I will stop you on removing contetn without offering better alternatives. Shaddim (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, I JUST asked you to cut this “gut feeling” nonsense. If you have to make things up to complain about in my arguments, just admit you don’t have any actual grounds to object. Otherwise, drop the straw man. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is exactly way around.... you keep on going with the feeling "this does not belong here" while not having a fitting supporting policy at hand (and continuing and annoying citing unfitting policies) for this position. yes, I will take the freedom calling that out as your personal gut feeling you try to push. Shaddim (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you really demanding a policy that says an article should be about the subject of the article? That’s common sense. Demanding a policy for that seems like wikilawyering to an absurd degree. I don’t mean to accuse you of that, but I’m trying and I genuinely can’t imagine a scenario where such a request would be made in good faith. So in the spirit of WP:AGF, I’m going to assume I misunderstand; could you clarify what the position is that seems dubious and needs policy support? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * you position ignoring feedback of fellow editors that they believe an alternatives section is in the spirit of wikipedia, in the spirit of the encouraged and everywhere existing "see also" sections, and in general contribution to this article ("inside the subject of this article") & the most pragmatic way for this content (as an own article is out of reach and also not created by you). You keep on going wtih "does not belong" here... please stop. Shaddim (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You complain I haven’t created the article, but you haven’t answered my request for sources to work off of, nor started a draft yourself like you said you’d like to.

I keep saying “it doesn’t belong here” because that content is not about Flatpak, and that is the core of my objection. But the very first sentence of this article links to other articles where it would belong, because those software projects are examples of those very things. To the best of my knowledge, we do not habitually offer alternatives or competitors to readers, only discussing them if it’s directly relevant to the subject of the article. For instance, McDonald’s is discussed in our Burger King article because it was a direct inspiration and because they had direct interaction—and not because it’s an alternative. But our McDonald's article does not discuss Burger King, even though they are very similar restaurants, because it’s not relevant to the subject. I hope this clarifies and shows precedence for my position.

Also, I wholeheartedly reject the notion of editing the main text “in the spirit of the See also section. That section is for listing links that generally do not fit in the main text. Again, I have no objection to listing similar projects in that manner; but if they have nothing to do with the actual subject of the article beyond having a similar purpose, there is no reason to discuss them in prose here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would be knowledgeable to the subject, you would be aware that there is quite some competition, interaction, and idea taking among them. Also, the section showed the greater historical picture where flatpak grew from. It is about context! The most important for readers. A minimized article to the most rigid form serves NOT readers the best. this is then a stub. Shaddim (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then let it be a stub until there are enough sources for proper expansion. There was no context given. If we could work it into the development history, with some kind of RS citing the influence of other projects on Poettering, we absolutely should do that. If you have sources that discuss the competition, interaction, and idea-taking between them and Flatpak, let’s use them. If we can’t, let’s leave the trivia out for now until we can. WP:There is no deadline; let’s just make the highest quality article we can make now, and if we can make a better one tomorrow or next year as sources become available, we’ll do it then. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "There was no context given" there was context indicated, reader could follow and would see the context. but the irony is : I would love to extend the context, yet I barely can defend the existing material against removals... how should that work ? (And I totally disagree to your conclusion that having no article at all and maybe some better in the future is anyhow better for the reader NOW)Shaddim (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's better because it's actually verifiable. Information that is not verifiable is useless to us and to our readers. More than useless, it's misleading, since readers expect anything we say to be verifiable. I understand that demonstrable verifiability is not that important to you, but it's kind of our whole thing. — on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue, the stuff is verifiable. But not as strict sourced as you request it for everything. you are willing to compromise everything to 1-2 simple rules. Intriguing, but missing the overarching goal, the creation of a encyclopedia. Shaddim (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is the core of an encyclopedia. See WP:VNT for a more thorough explanation. If you feel you can expand the historical context as pertains to the subject and you have the sources to back it up, go for it. If you feel you can expand it but don’t have the sources to back it up, you are not writing an encyclopedia, whatever your intentions. If you want to expand into discussing the history of the technological concepts, even if you have the sources, you’re not writing an article about Flatpak. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * repeating the policies is not bringing us forward here. Not blocking articles progress by being less pedantic (or even contribute! unheard of) would help. (And I disagree with you, bringing context IS writting about flatpak! Why I'm even discussion constructive article creation with you? you don't do that....) Shaddim (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I’ll remind you again of WP:NPA. I’ll also say again that if you think you can expand it in a relevant way based directly on sources, then stop complaining and blaming and do it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could post your sources here, and we could collaborate on building out Flatpak’s history. Or if for any reason you don’t want to participate, you could just leave the sources here for others to work from. You could do it yourself if you wanted, but I think it would be best to have us all look at the sources and work out how to proceed together. Cheers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

“xdg-app” meaning
Are there any sources that explain where the name “xdg-app” came from? This article claims it came from the name of XDG, but is this claim based on anything? And if not, is it original research to come to that conclusion on our own? I mean, I don’t know if “has XDG in the name → named after XDG project” is a WP:SKYISBLUE case. Is it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this falls under You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue, yeah. It could certainly be worded more obliquely: "xdg-app is developed under the umbrella of freedesktop.org, which was known as XDG". Nonetheless helpful for readers who may not be aware of the XDG / freedesktop etc thing. Anyway, this is ultimately just history - not super important either way. II  | (t - c) 05:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your section link, since it assigns ulterior motives; I asked because I genuinely didn’t know the answer, or even whether xdg-app really was named after XDG. If we’re sure it was, and that it’s a reasonable conclusion, cool. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * THANK, THANK you for this policy link...finally a weapon against this excessive pedantery. Shaddim (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground. You don’t need weapons. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For such an statement your usage of policy weapons is quite experienced.... I have the opposite impression, up to now I relied to much on common sense and goodwill when arms race would have been maybe the proper approach.Shaddim (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If that’s your mindset, you may wish to re-read that link a couple times. Arms races do not belong on Wikipedia. If I seem like I’m trying to “fight” you, it’s only that I’m frustrated with your refusal to WP:LISTEN to so many things. But this is no longer a discussion about this article, so let’s take it elsewhere if we continue. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What's your point? You try to enforce since month a policy interpretation of your liking on me. You didn't listen to me when I looked for common ground. Or evasive ground. You keep on going and going and going. For the sake of making your point, not for WP. Shaddim (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please post to my own Talk page or some other suitable page if you want me to respond. Again, this is far off-topic for any article talkpage. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's really important, feel free to submit a question to the mailing list. However, I think the connection is a bit "duh". I reworded it give the context for the original name more oblique. II  | (t - c) 23:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I recently tried to rewrite that bit myself, but I like your version better. I had also considered trying some variation of, Developed as part of the XDG (X Desktop Group) project, since renamed freedesktop.org… but it seemed too roundabout and I couldn’t get it to work. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial Release
When was the initial release? - ol_b (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed Category:Operating system security and added Category:Virtualization software
I understand why the former was added, but Flatpak is a virtualized environment for applications, not exactly a security feature. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this, mainly because Flatpak includes sandboxing to ensure the end users system remains untainted, as much as it can be, along with stable libraries. I'd very much rather it be in the former category, and I don't think Flatpak fits with "virtualization software." It would fit into Category:Containerization software, however. Orowith2os (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What does it do and how does it do it?
The article fails to answer either of these questions. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe I've added some information to help with your problem, and I plan on making this article more detailed in the future, along with some cleaner explanations in the upstream documetnation. Orowith2os (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Supported" section, add list of niche features
Flatpak was made to run on most any Linux distribution (there is not a single distro I know of that can't run Flatpak, even musl libc systems) and I feel it would be more beneficial to remove this section listing all the supported distributions, and instead link to the main Flatpak/Flathub setup pages. Thoughts?

Additionally, I've been working on documentation for upstream Flatpak, and found a variety of niche features that I think would be nice to have listed here (for example, running apps in a different runtime, and custom graphics library runtime extensions). Should I list them here too? I already have a merge request in the works for the niche features upstream. Orowith2os (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Niclas Overby before you continue to add more distributions to the list, maybe consider this. Orowith2os (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The list was getting fairly large, and the Flatpak setup page hosts instructions to set it up on many distributions already, so I cut the list out in favor of the setup page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flatpak&oldid=1139590878 Orowith2os (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Create "Adoption" section.
Many articles on Wikipedia have an "Adoption" section of the article that states the product's adoption. The Snap software packing system Wikipedia article also has this adoption section. I think it would be a good Idea to add this to Flatpak's article. Below I will draft the sections content with comments. Feel free to provide feedback or draft yourself. 73.245.58.85 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

TODO please add comparison with snap
. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)