Flatpak/FlatHub

[Winterhuman]

Related: #100

It'd be nice to have Museeks published on FlatHub. Alternatively, if FlatHub publishing is a tough ask, a flatpak app as a release package would be completely fine as well (if it's an option, still reading up on it).

[martpie]

I mostly use a Mac for development, but it should be do-able to build them via the CI. I'll leave the publication responsibility to someone else, as I did for Fedora, Debian, etc.

I have to fix a couple of things to the CI anyway (code signing and other stuff), so I can add that to my list.

[martpie]

That said, I remember we were using Flatpak a while ago, and we removed its support, as like Snap, they had many issues. But things may have improved since.

[jangorecki]

I would like to propose packaging for fedora as an alternative to flatpak, so users can just dnf install.
Is there any chance for that?

[martpie]

Hey @jangorecki! In order to keep sane, my overall position regarding distribution is the following:

• I will package in all the major format I can easily bundle to
• With the migration to Tauri underway, this includes: .deb, . rpm, .AppImage., maybe snap, maybe flatpak(depends how annoying they are to setup)
• I publish the binaries links to museeks.io, and the .md5 hash
• that's about it.
  • minor exception: I sometimes update Homebrew's Museeks Cask myself

Anything regarding publication on various stores, app centers, repos, etc, I don't want to do myself, because that's a rabbit hole that's too deep and depressing for me, and I'd rather play Lethal Company instead. 😄

So if you want to own publishing for Fedora, please feel free to do it, just try to stick with the right version number is all I ask.