For those just now looking into this here is a link: https://docs.appimage.org/
If we switch to this packaging it appears that we can significantly reduce the many Linux packages we create when we release. Interesting. Best, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On May 7, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > Any news on this topic? > > If we want it to happen we need to work on it... > > Regards, > > Matthias > >> Am 21.03.23 um 16:19 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Hi All, >> >> Now that AOO 4.1.14 is released wouldn't it be the perfect time to start >> development on an AppImage (or similar)? >> >> Regards, >> >> Matthias >> >>> Am 18.02.23 um 13:48 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Am 15.02.23 um 18:05 schrieb Yury Tarasievich: >>>> On 15/02/2023 19:39, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >>>> >>>>> I documented 8 projects that tried to achieve that and compared them >>>>> in the attached spreadsheet, and there are more. >>>> The document is a beaut, but you've excluded Flatpak and Snap, one of >>>> which you sort of condemn and one of which you recommend, nevertheless. >>>> >>>> Why not AppImage, for which half a work is already there, AFAIU ? (I >>>> mean `installed` method of packaging) So it hasn't got sandboxing. Is >>>> it such a big deal? >>> I don't think we need sandboxing in the first place. >>> >>> An easy to install package for Linux would be good, so maybe we can try >>> to do an Appimage package after the release of AOO 4.1.14? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Matthias >>> >>>> Also, any new packaging method would have to integrate into the >>>> existing build framework? Which isn't exactly a model of clarity and >>>> robustness? >>>> >>>> -Yury >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> >
