[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 Mauro Carvalho Chehab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #12 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Kaffeine's Docker container is now at: https://cloud.docker.com/u/maurochehab/repository/docker/maurochehab/kaffeine -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 Mauro Carvalho Chehab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- Ever confirmed|0

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 Mauro Carvalho Chehab changed: What|Removed |Added Latest Commit||https://commits.kde.org/kaf

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #9 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Created attachment 111782 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=111782=edit Add snapcraft support to Kaffeine -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #8 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- I played a little with snapcraft during the weekend. Doing a basic build itself is not that hard. According to snapcraft, all it would be required is to add a tree at github:

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #7 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- (In reply to James Cain from comment #6) > Is there any reason not to include version 3 of VLC libs with the snap? What would be the syntax for doing that? AFAIKT, there's an

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #6 from James Cain --- Is there any reason not to include version 3 of VLC libs with the snap? I use VLC 3 AS a snap, and it's great. Not sure you can make a snap dependent on another snap, however. One of the main

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #5 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- As a test, I uploaded a copy of kaffeine's tree to my github account: https://github.com/mchehab/kaffeine And added a snap/snapcraft.yaml based on vlc snap one there, letting it

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #4 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- (In reply to James Cain from comment #3) > Not to enlarge this scope too much, but Snap, Flatpak, or AppImage, anything > would be a better option than what's there now. With

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 James Cain changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dequ...@mykolab.com ---

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #2 from Peter Eszlari --- > If I understand well, you want to generate a package that won't depend on > libudev, right? In the case of flatpak, yes. Flatpak runs the app in a sandbox, where it is not allowed to

[kaffeine] [Bug 388232] Provide Flatpak or AppImage for kaffeine

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388232 --- Comment #1 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- (In reply to Peter Eszlari from comment #0) > https://flatpak.org / https://flathub.org > > I wanted to build a flatpak of kaffeine and publish it on flathub. Then I > noticed that