[digiKam-users] appimage

[Jono pollard]

Greetings,

Love digikam but not thrilled with appimage. If I were a dev for digikam wouldn't waste more resources using that system. It isn't intuitive and leaves one wandering where to put the file and how to integrate it into their system. I'd rather use an older version through my distributions packaging system than have one random program use a completely obtuse system. That's what I'm going to do but I wanted to share the opinions of a regular digikam user. I get what appimage is about, but unless all of linux switches to installing programs this way, it ends up just being clunky.

Jono

[Rafael Linux]

As an (advanced) Linux user, I see appimages are just like "portables" applications in Windows. They are not intended to replace installed applications. They are practical solutions to specific situations, so the user has the chance to decide if that's what he need or not for those situations.

For example, I have been using appimages of GIMP cause it was the simplest way to have in my system the 2.10 version. It was not the easier way to work with it, but for me to have it was a priority over commodity.

And for beta testing I think it's a great solution, instead wait to have it in repositories or to compile by ourselves.

Appimages are a great idea IMHO.

Regards

El vie., 17 ago. 2018 21:41, Jono pollard <[hidden email]> escribió:

Greetings,

Love digikam but not thrilled with appimage. If I were a dev for digikam wouldn't waste more resources using that system. It isn't intuitive and leaves one wandering where to put the file and how to integrate it into their system. I'd rather use an older version through my distributions packaging system than have one random program use a completely obtuse system. That's what I'm going to do but I wanted to share the opinions of a regular digikam user. I get what appimage is about, but unless all of linux switches to installing programs this way, it ends up just being clunky.

Jono

[Gilles Caulier-4]

As a developer, and as the main maintainer of the Linux AppImage bundle, i can say :

1/ yes, maintain a stand alone bundle take a while, especially to run on all main linux box.

2/ AppImage as HUGE advantage, as, it include all the DK dependencies that i compile and customize extacly as it must be for DK. For ex, the big puzzle OpenCV is compiled with all options disabled, that we don't use. This prevent crashes especially with Intel thread management implemented in OpenCV. Even if this lib provide great algorithms, they include features that must be relocated in separated library. OpenCV is the most weird open source project that i know.

3/ AppImage can be used as well, quickly, to test new features, without to install anything. this permit to check if a bug have been fixed with mast commit, without that user need to compile anything. So AppImage is the best thing which arrive in open source world and especially in Linux. this remove the complexity to user, permit to advance in the project quickly, and permit all regression test by the users. So the loop between dev and users is closed well.

4/ It take now 10 minutes to update AppImage bundle after a fix, on my computer. You cannot do better. Integrating AppImage in a Continuous Integration process is the miracle about software management.

So to resume :

1/ I support AppImage

2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.

3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and support digiKam application natively in your system, because we (digiKam team) don't it instead.

Voilà

Gilles Caulier 

2018-08-18 12:52 GMT+02:00 Rafael Linux User <[hidden email]>:

As an (advanced) Linux user, I see appimages are just like "portables" applications in Windows. They are not intended to replace installed applications. They are practical solutions to specific situations, so the user has the chance to decide if that's what he need or not for those situations.

For example, I have been using appimages of GIMP cause it was the simplest way to have in my system the 2.10 version. It was not the easier way to work with it, but for me to have it was a priority over commodity.

And for beta testing I think it's a great solution, instead wait to have it in repositories or to compile by ourselves.

Appimages are a great idea IMHO.

Regards

El vie., 17 ago. 2018 21:41, Jono pollard <[hidden email]> escribió:

Greetings,

Love digikam but not thrilled with appimage. If I were a dev for digikam wouldn't waste more resources using that system. It isn't intuitive and leaves one wandering where to put the file and how to integrate it into their system. I'd rather use an older version through my distributions packaging system than have one random program use a completely obtuse system. That's what I'm going to do but I wanted to share the opinions of a regular digikam user. I get what appimage is about, but unless all of linux switches to installing programs this way, it ends up just being clunky.

Jono

[digikam-2]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

[Jono pollard]

All I can say is that at least flatpack easily integrates into the rest of the system. Appimage is more like windows or mac where you can just run a program from where ever. Which can obviously be convenient but it's a nightmare when literally every other program is well integrated into the system. You guys do whatever you like, I'm just letting you know as a user what the experience is like. And it ain't ideal. I think sometimes devs forget that regular people are going to be using the stuff they spend so much time and effort on. Thought I'd offer a little feedback. Like I said previously, I am a big fan of the software in general and appreciate what you guys do.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

[Mica Semrick]

Another KDE dev created a flatpak manifest for the nightly version of digiKam, so adapting that manifest to the stable version should not be difficult, given that someone wants to do that work.

I might take a stab at it if I find some time.

-m

On August 18, 2018 10:13:08 AM PDT, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

[Mica Semrick]

If you put all your appimages in one folder, like ~/Applications, you can either add that to your path, or you can create .desktop files for each application. That will get them recognized by most launchers.

Some appimages check for their own .desktop file and make one for you if it doesn't exist. This is how the gimp appimages works.

-m

On August 18, 2018 11:33:34 AM PDT, Jono pollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

All I can say is that at least flatpack easily integrates into the rest of the system. Appimage is more like windows or mac where you can just run a program from where ever. Which can obviously be convenient but it's a nightmare when literally every other program is well integrated into the system. You guys do whatever you like, I'm just letting you know as a user what the experience is like. And it ain't ideal. I think sometimes devs forget that regular people are going to be using the stuff they spend so much time and effort on. Thought I'd offer a little feedback. Like I said previously, I am a big fan of the software in general and appreciate what you guys do.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

[Jono pollard]

Thanks for the suggestion and that's I guess what I'll have to do, but that's my whole point. That it's a more involved process than either sudo dpkg -i digikam.deb or apt-get install digikam. Either of those just does everything for you. No need to create new directories to store stuff, no adding things to your PATH. I don't even know what a .desktop file is. If this is simpler and easier for the user, why is it more involved? I get why it's easier for devs to create but it certainly isn't easier for users. I'm not new to linux, I've been using it solely on my personal laptop for maybe 5 years and before that I was using it off and on, dual boot or on an extra machine since like 2002. I'm not an "(advanced) Linux user" by any means but I'm no stranger. And making things more difficult never seems like progress to me.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Mica Semrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you put all your appimages in one folder, like ~/Applications, you can either add that to your path, or you can create .desktop files for each application. That will get them recognized by most launchers.

Some appimages check for their own .desktop file and make one for you if it doesn't exist. This is how the gimp appimages works.

-m

On August 18, 2018 11:33:34 AM PDT, Jono pollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

All I can say is that at least flatpack easily integrates into the rest of the system. Appimage is more like windows or mac where you can just run a program from where ever. Which can obviously be convenient but it's a nightmare when literally every other program is well integrated into the system. You guys do whatever you like, I'm just letting you know as a user what the experience is like. And it ain't ideal. I think sometimes devs forget that regular people are going to be using the stuff they spend so much time and effort on. Thought I'd offer a little feedback. Like I said previously, I am a big fan of the software in general and appreciate what you guys do.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

[AndriusWild]

Jono,

There are plenty of linux distributions that have the latest stable digikam in their repos.

KDE Neon

openSUSE (Tumbleweed for sure, I don't know about Leap)

Fedora

Manjaro / Arch

etc.

Maybe the distro you have chosen isn't quite corresponding your needs? I was in the same boat a couple of years ago...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------

From: Jono pollard <[hidden email]>

Date: 2018-08-18 5:40 PM (GMT-07:00)

To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [digiKam-users] appimage

Thanks for the suggestion and that's I guess what I'll have to do, but that's my whole point. That it's a more involved process than either sudo dpkg -i digikam.deb or apt-get install digikam. Either of those just does everything for you. No need to create new directories to store stuff, no adding things to your PATH. I don't even know what a .desktop file is. If this is simpler and easier for the user, why is it more involved? I get why it's easier for devs to create but it certainly isn't easier for users. I'm not new to linux, I've been using it solely on my personal laptop for maybe 5 years and before that I was using it off and on, dual boot or on an extra machine since like 2002. I'm not an "(advanced) Linux user" by any means but I'm no stranger. And making things more difficult never seems like progress to me.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Mica Semrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you put all your appimages in one folder, like ~/Applications, you can either add that to your path, or you can create .desktop files for each application. That will get them recognized by most launchers.

Some appimages check for their own .desktop file and make one for you if it doesn't exist. This is how the gimp appimages works.

-m

On August 18, 2018 11:33:34 AM PDT, Jono pollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

All I can say is that at least flatpack easily integrates into the rest of the system. Appimage is more like windows or mac where you can just run a program from where ever. Which can obviously be convenient but it's a nightmare when literally every other program is well integrated into the system. You guys do whatever you like, I'm just letting you know as a user what the experience is like. And it ain't ideal. I think sometimes devs forget that regular people are going to be using the stuff they spend so much time and effort on. Thought I'd offer a little feedback. Like I said previously, I am a big fan of the software in general and appreciate what you guys do.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

[Jono pollard]

Andrey,

You could be right. But (as I'm sure is obvious by now) I don't like change :) But maybe I'll try some others out after years with the same one and see if something else works better for me. 

In any case, I'll stop clogging this mailing list with my replies, 

Thanks for the responses!

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Andrey Goreev <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jono,

There are plenty of linux distributions that have the latest stable digikam in their repos.

KDE Neon

openSUSE (Tumbleweed for sure, I don't know about Leap)

Fedora

Manjaro / Arch

etc.

Maybe the distro you have chosen isn't quite corresponding your needs? I was in the same boat a couple of years ago...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------

From: Jono pollard <[hidden email]>

Date: 2018-08-18 5:40 PM (GMT-07:00)

To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [digiKam-users] appimage

Thanks for the suggestion and that's I guess what I'll have to do, but that's my whole point. That it's a more involved process than either sudo dpkg -i digikam.deb or apt-get install digikam. Either of those just does everything for you. No need to create new directories to store stuff, no adding things to your PATH. I don't even know what a .desktop file is. If this is simpler and easier for the user, why is it more involved? I get why it's easier for devs to create but it certainly isn't easier for users. I'm not new to linux, I've been using it solely on my personal laptop for maybe 5 years and before that I was using it off and on, dual boot or on an extra machine since like 2002. I'm not an "(advanced) Linux user" by any means but I'm no stranger. And making things more difficult never seems like progress to me.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Mica Semrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you put all your appimages in one folder, like ~/Applications, you can either add that to your path, or you can create .desktop files for each application. That will get them recognized by most launchers.

Some appimages check for their own .desktop file and make one for you if it doesn't exist. This is how the gimp appimages works.

-m

On August 18, 2018 11:33:34 AM PDT, Jono pollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

All I can say is that at least flatpack easily integrates into the rest of the system. Appimage is more like windows or mac where you can just run a program from where ever. Which can obviously be convenient but it's a nightmare when literally every other program is well integrated into the system. You guys do whatever you like, I'm just letting you know as a user what the experience is like. And it ain't ideal. I think sometimes devs forget that regular people are going to be using the stuff they spend so much time and effort on. Thought I'd offer a little feedback. Like I said previously, I am a big fan of the software in general and appreciate what you guys do.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

[AndriusWild]

Gilles

Would be possible for you to share your script to  compile an appimage for 64 bit aarchitecture or at least some parts of it?

I want to take a look and see if I can convert it into a script to compile the latest stable digikam for Debian / Ubuntu users.

As you mentioned before it is important to disable some features of exiv2, openCV, etc. during the compilation otherwise digikam might be unstable.

Let me know.

Andrey

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------

From: Jono pollard <[hidden email]>

Date: 2018-08-18 6:00 PM (GMT-07:00)

To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [digiKam-users] appimage

Andrey,

You could be right. But (as I'm sure is obvious by now) I don't like change :) But maybe I'll try some others out after years with the same one and see if something else works better for me. 

In any case, I'll stop clogging this mailing list with my replies, 

Thanks for the responses!

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Andrey Goreev <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jono,

There are plenty of linux distributions that have the latest stable digikam in their repos.

KDE Neon

openSUSE (Tumbleweed for sure, I don't know about Leap)

Fedora

Manjaro / Arch

etc.

Maybe the distro you have chosen isn't quite corresponding your needs? I was in the same boat a couple of years ago...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------

From: Jono pollard <[hidden email]>

Date: 2018-08-18 5:40 PM (GMT-07:00)

To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [digiKam-users] appimage

Thanks for the suggestion and that's I guess what I'll have to do, but that's my whole point. That it's a more involved process than either sudo dpkg -i digikam.deb or apt-get install digikam. Either of those just does everything for you. No need to create new directories to store stuff, no adding things to your PATH. I don't even know what a .desktop file is. If this is simpler and easier for the user, why is it more involved? I get why it's easier for devs to create but it certainly isn't easier for users. I'm not new to linux, I've been using it solely on my personal laptop for maybe 5 years and before that I was using it off and on, dual boot or on an extra machine since like 2002. I'm not an "(advanced) Linux user" by any means but I'm no stranger. And making things more difficult never seems like progress to me.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Mica Semrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you put all your appimages in one folder, like ~/Applications, you can either add that to your path, or you can create .desktop files for each application. That will get them recognized by most launchers.

Some appimages check for their own .desktop file and make one for you if it doesn't exist. This is how the gimp appimages works.

-m

On August 18, 2018 11:33:34 AM PDT, Jono pollard <[hidden email]> wrote:

All I can say is that at least flatpack easily integrates into the rest of the system. Appimage is more like windows or mac where you can just run a program from where ever. Which can obviously be convenient but it's a nightmare when literally every other program is well integrated into the system. You guys do whatever you like, I'm just letting you know as a user what the experience is like. And it ain't ideal. I think sometimes devs forget that regular people are going to be using the stuff they spend so much time and effort on. Thought I'd offer a little feedback. Like I said previously, I am a big fan of the software in general and appreciate what you guys do.

Jono

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Flat pack vs AppImage : this is a good question

2 years ago I was contacted by the AppImage Lead developer to propose a digikam bundle

I this tile I was already take a look to the bundles for Linux. Flatpack was not really documented and AppImage very well. With the help of AppImage, the Rita team which already provide an AppImage bundle I created a first version in 3 weeks with the minimum features. Since this time I create a lots of bash scripts to create the bundles with a good documentation. This include also windows with a cross compilation through mixe, and macOS using Mac ports. 

Flatpack is more mature now and more secure from the start to send box the application better than AppImage.

AppImage has now the same concept, so there is no more advantage to use flatpack.

So I will not investigate to create a flatpack version of DK. If someone want to do it, no problem, but I maintain the AppImage and my time is limited

Other important point : keep provide a bundle factory including AppImage, windows installer and Mac package

This use step by step the craft framework. This can be fine for small applications, but for digikam we need something we’ll customized.

https://binary-factory.kde.org/

Perhaps, in the future, we will use this service, but for the moment, the do scripts do the job well since a very long time, where craft framework still under development ( I receive the mails from the team)

Voilà for this story. Packaging is complex job and take a while, but a complex application badly packaged cannot work properly and finally, users will report the application as completely bugous.

Gilles caulier

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:22, <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:35:12 +0200
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So to resume :
>
> 1/ I support AppImage
> 2/ I will continuous to support AppImage in the future.
> 3/ If you don't like AppImage, ask to your packagers to update and
> support digiKam application natively in your system, because we
> (digiKam team) don't it instead.

I like the principle of appimage. It allows me to use DK. Currently,
I'm on xfce. It makes my life simple.

Question to Gilles:

appimage vs flatpak.

More and more are using flatpak to include everything. My son, in
academia/bioinfomatics requires that people send their software in
"flatpaks" which is becoming quite well accepted in academia.

BTW, Isn't GIMP also using flatpak with Redhat supporting the project?

--
sknahT

vyS

--

Le 19/08/2018 à 01:40, Jono pollard a écrit :
> Thanks for the suggestion and that's I guess what I'll have to do, but

appimage are the very late uptodate version.

This is necessary if you want to report any kind of bug or wish (to know
what is current), but may have some new bug - I never had the problem
with digikam, but had with kdenlive. Be warned that is your current
digikam version is old, they may be jump on database structure.

if you don't have anything to report, don't use them... but then,
usually you don't have to write here :-(

and the only steps to do are to make the file executable (right click,
properties in dolphin) and click on it...

jdd
--
http://dodin.org