• JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Cool, thanks for the explanation.

    a single application that gets bundled with all necessary dependencies including versioning

    Does that mean that if I were to install Application A and Application B that both have dependency to package C version 1.2.3 I then would have package C (and all of its possible sub dependencies) twice on my disk? I don’t know how much external dependencies applications on Linux usually have but doesn’t that have the potential to waste huge amounts of disk space?

    • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 months ago

      Essentially yes, if you start using lots if older applications or mixing applications that use many different dependency versions, you will start to use lots of extra disk space because the different apps have to use their own separate dependency trees and so forth.

      This doesn’t mean it will be like 2x-3x the size as traditional packages, but from what I’ve seen, it could definitely be 10-20% larger on disk. Not a huge deal for most people, but if you have limited disk space for one reason or another, it could be a problem.

      • brachypelmasmithi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        It CAN get pretty wild sometimes, though. For example, Flameshot (screenshotting utility) is only ~560KB as a system package, while its flatpak version is ~1.4GB (almost 2.5k times as big)

        • j0rge@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Flameshot is 3.6MB on disk according to flatpak info org.flameshot.Flameshot

          • brachypelmasmithi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Weird, the software manager (using LM 21.3) reports 1.1GB dl, 2.4GB installed (which is different from when i checked yesterday for some reason?). flatpak install reports around 2.1GB of dependencies and the package itself at just 1.3MB

            EDIT: nvm im stupid, the other reply explains the discrepancy

    • qaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Most dependencies are bundled in the “runtime” images, and it uses file deduplication to reduce the size of the dependencies, but it’s still a little more than a normal package manager.

    • MajinBlayze [any, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s not quite that simple.

      Each package can choose one from a handful of runtimes to use, each of which include common dependencies (like gnome or qt libraries), and if multiple flatpaks use the same runtime, that runtime is only downloaded once.

      It is less space efficient than your typical package manager, but brings other benefits like sandboxing.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Flatpak as a dependency system that allows use of specially packaged library type flatpaks. This significantly reduces the needed disk space.

    • Chronicon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      on a desktop it might not be significant but I tried using flatpak apps on a device with very limited root emmc storage (16 GB) and ran out of space really fast. Its really common to see a couple multi-hundred-megabyte library downloads for each new app IME.

      I like them for some stuff but there are glaring issues that I don’t like. I’ve posted about it before, poor integration of apps/not getting the right permissions is a big problem, the people packaging them don’t often do as good of a job as someone like a distro maintainer.

      But admittedly my experience using it probably isn’t representative (pop os through their shop and arch on a mobile device). Neither were amazing, but not having to compile shit myself or install with an untrusted shell script was nice for some apps. Without some significant improvements it’s not a good replacement for a distro’s package repos but it might be a good way to broaden the available applications without having to maintain 10x more packages.

    • mrvictory1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not necessarily. GNOME and KDE dependencies and “base system” for flatpaks to run in are flatpaks themselves so apps that depend on them will not use duplicated dependencies. Storage usage may not be as efficient as using a traditional package manager but you don’t install a new OS per app either.