If i think about using flatpaks on endeavouros , will you guys encourage me to do that?

I use many AUR packages and i love installing things from aur.
So I see that there are some packages in AUR that are available as flatpaks.
So I knew that the theming with the flatpaks is an issue,idc anyway(But I actually care sometimes lol).
I’m thinking that flatpaks are more secure than AUR.
So does eos officially supports the flatpak?
Plz reply
thank u:)

I thought it was snaps that had theming issues.

Both of them have this issue.
But i think it’s fixable!

Why would a flatpak be more “secure” than AUR?

You can certainly use flatpaks on EOS. flatpak is in the repos.

That being said, I am not sure what “offically support” would mean in this case.

In my experience, flatpaks are more challenging with theming issues than snaps due to the sandboxing. That being said, I haven’t used snaps in a few years so that could have changed.


Imho it’s the other way around.
It’s fully transparent how an AUR package is built and where the sources come from.
You are the cook and just get the recipe. Whereas with flatpaks you just eat what you get :wink:


For me, it was my experience was the opposite. When I was using non-arch distros and having to rely on those universal formats to get things that I couldn’t find in regular repos, it was often snaps that would not abide by themes. In any case I am glad to not need them. The only universal packages I have on my pc these days are AppImage because there are things out there that are only available as AppImage (“another metroid 2 remake” game for example) .

You are the cook and just get the recipe. Whereas with flatpaks you just eat what you get :wink:

You can always look at the .yml file for building flatpak, but it is certainly more convenient to check how an AUR package is built.

I think I have more of an issue with snaps than flatpaks, because of their closed-source centralized nature.

1 Like

To the original post if you want to run flatpaks it’s pretty easy to enable, they even give you the instructions on the website for EOS https://flatpak.org/setup/EndeavourOS, but ultimately it is up to you if you want to use AUR or flatpak.

Is there an reasonable way to extract the manifest from a flatpak before installing it/upgrading it?

I saw that in garuda linux website they have quoted that “using snaps are not officially supported and considered unsupported”
I meant whether there are something in endeavour os.

I’m gonna stick with AUR. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like

I thought that Flatpaks are maintained by the developers(Of the company)
and AUR is maintained by some unknown person in the internet

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t.

It depends on the specific package in question.


Don’t know if it’s officially supported or not, but Flatpak is in Arch repository, while Snap is available only from AUR. So, if a package is supported by Arch Linux, is supported by EndeavourOS too.

The use of any source to install packages is up to each user. In my short experience on Linux, I had some issues related to other sources than official repos (specially with Snap), that made my laptop slower at boot. So I’ve decided to use only official repos (and AUR).

Yesterday I’ve installed a package from AUR and it took long time to compile (my laptop is getting old) and I’m thinking that I’ll reinstall only this package from flatpak, don’t know yet, maybe I’ll decide when there’s an update for it.

I will focus on using AUR, as I can have all packages of my need available there.
Also installing package from AUR requires yay -S packagename
whereas from flatpak we need to run flatpak install flathub org.pkgnme

which requires more typing, also to launch them we need to use flatpak run com.packagename.
Here it is clear that we need to give lots of effort for using packages via flatpaks.

You can limit your snacks a bit with Flatseal. :grinning:

Why is that? Do you have any information supporting that?

The thing is that if build an AUR package you don’t even need to care if you can trust the maintainer or not. It does not matter who maintains it. You can check simply check the build instructions where sources are being taken from and how it builds the package. So you can check if downloads from the official developers website / git repo, etc. (If the sources come from “get-some-good-malware.org” you’d probably want to avoid installing it :wink:)

Now with flatpak, I’m actually not really sure how that works.
Seems you can GPG sign em. So if it comes from the developers you would obviously trust it.
But what if not? In case of flathub, I see they have the build instructions available in github.

Is flathub itself compiling the “flatpak” (according to those instructions) or is it being built and uploaded by the maintainer?


Ok, so actually they (flathub) build it. Which means it is just as transparent as the AUR.
(The only thing is that you have to trust flathub itself not to put malware into it :rofl: )



Almost all pkgbuilds on AUR have their source listed. We can just go to the source and verify the build process.
AUR probably one the most transparent ways of installing software because we know exactly whats going on

1 Like

Aehm, yeah. That’s what I was trying to say :wink:

1 Like