If you have to choose between using an App Image, from the developpers official site or an AUR package (or apt e.g), what do you choose?
I prefer AUR packages, but it depends on how many AUR dependencies it uses and how well maintained and used by others it is, I rely mainly on the official repo and try to use AUR and others in a complementary way, I also don’t run any AppImages, just the ones from open-source applications and that I trust minimally.
My personal order:
Repositories > AUR > Making an own AUR package > Making an own package not in AUR > Flatpak > Using an alternative to that application > consider if I really need it > AppImage
Why do you consider AppImages as last resort?
I can understand that in a distro the main repo need to be prioritized to avoid bloat of repetitive dependencies that could happen with a lot of AppImages.
I can’t understand why so many people are opposed to it as an supportive role from a practical and complementary perspective.
Why do you consider AppImages as last resort?
Mainly because you cannot manage them properly.
Installing from the repos I have pacman, from the AUR I can use one of the various AUR helpers (most of them can forward repo package updates to pacman, so I really have just one command to update the system and all AUR packages).
When making my own packages I usually also put them in the AUR (plus, it is super easy to do make an own package and put in in the AUR) – and from there an aUR helper takes care about updates. Flatpaks can also be updated very easy by just running one command.
So: All of those have a specific location where they install and allow me to start them easily because they put a script/link somewhere in
$PATH. All of those can be easily maintained and updated.Last time I checked, AppImages had none of those. Neither could I easily update all of them on my system, nor is there a dedicated location to place them, nor is there an “unified” (i.e. something in
$PATH) way of starting them. I have to manually check for updates, re-download the whole thing, replace the current AppImage file in an arbitrary location.This is just how I do not want to maintain my programs.
Using app images eliminates the chance of breaking your system to almost zero. But updating them could be an inconvenience.
AppImages can support selfupdating I do use few of them which support this feature.
I always use that appimageupdate tool. It doesn’t work on all of them. The creator has to support it.
You can try bauch It is an graphical application to search install and update AppImage, Debian and Arch Linux packages (including AUR), Flatpak, Snap and Web applications.
Bauh can be installed on Fedora? I never realized that. I use to use it when I ran Endeavour OS, but I always thought it was an arch exclusive app.
Yes, you can just download the Appimage version and execute it and install bauh from the app. On Fedora it will only support the FlatPak and AppImages not system repo and corps.
Man, thank you for bringing that up. I love bauh. Already installed. Even for appimages, I’d much rather use it than go hunting for them everywhere
They are great if you want to stay on a certain version though.
I’d pick the AUR package 100% of the time because I hate everything about the idea of appimages and the like.
With the AUR, there is an “it depends” since AUR packages are unofficial and variable in quality.
That said, I have a strong bias for installing the distro package over using AppImage or Flatpak.
There are three reasons not to use the distro package:
- the package is not available
- the package is too old
- the package maintainer cannot be trusted
My #1 reason for using Arch is to eliminate 1 and 2. In my experience, the AUR is almost always fine for #3.
Even when I use another distro, I put Distrobox with Arch on it and get any of the packages that the distro does not have from there.
The only Flatpak I have had to install has been pgAdmin.
AUR, when I can. I run my own binary package repo. App images are an interesting concept, but usually they are compiled against ancient versions of glibc for increased compatibility. Optimizations and CVE patches may or may not be applied, LD lookups are longer, etc.
Aur ftw.
But if I need to compile a large project then appimage
Personally, I prefer installation via the package manager… Saves some steps and I’ve not had a problem using this procedure since the 90’s…
AppImage is fine and all but there are some extra steps required to have that “app” appear in the OS menu and such…
And, as an old fuck, I’m not fond of referring to the software installed on my computer as “app”. It’s “software” or “a program”.
And, yes. Phone is also a computer and “app” is the appropriate word usage on that platform…
I know. Semantics. But it’s what I’m used to.
🤷♂️ 🤷♂️
This person gets it!
Pacman /w chaotic-aur, otherwise AUR with yay
Depends on the release model of the distro and on the kind of software.
AppImage. Because it has portable config feature
Don’t all apps have that? Just throw your dotfiles on GitHub
It does not only make config can be stored but can also be used on other drives
I don’t see the use-case for this that couldn’t be handled by syncthing, rclone, github, or whatever offline storage you’re using for backups. I think I’m missing something…
Yes, you’re missing something. AppImage’s portable config feature can also make you use your config on other drive. You don’t need to symlink your config to ~/.config. you can use your config directly on your other drive
Yeah, but why would I want to do that? I don’t understand what problem this is solving…
The benefit is that I can save a fraction of a second by not having to symlink a config file… At the cost of having to use a bloated app system?
I don’t understand what problem this is solving…
AppImage’s portable config feature is very useful if you use live usb, and AppImage’s portable config feature makes your ~/ clean from scattered application configs
Ah ok, now that makes a bit more sense. Yeah, I guess for the sake of app portability, appimages and the like do make a lot of sense.
I really like App-images. For the most part, they just work, download, run, done. And sometimes you want the flexibility to install something the distro’s pacakage manager doesn’t give you (or doesn’t have the latest version of). It’s a little extra work to put the app in system menus, etc though.
Package manger still preferred. Having the system deal with updates and dependencies is nice.
AUR is still good, but I’d take the App Image. Sometimes these work for me, sometimes they don’t. Still have to manually update them, AFAIK.
