jralls at ceridwen.us
Thu May 10 18:41:23 EDT 2018
> On May 10, 2018, at 2:42 PM, cicko <alen.siljak at gmx.com> wrote:
> I just learned a bit more about application packages (AppImage, Snap,
> Flatpak) on Linux after downloading KeePassXC image and find them quite
> Nabble does not find anything if I search for AppImage so I'd like to see
> you opinion about using one of these for distributing Linux version of
> GnuCash. I've only used AppImage so far and it works fine. Apparently it
> would work on any distribution because all the libraries are packaged with
> the executable.
> If this was applied to GnuCash, would the distribution size be much larger?
> Has anyone tried?
> Even though I'm on Tumbleweed, a rolling OpenSuse distribution with the
> apparently latest software, GnuCash 3.1 is still not available as a
> compatible rpm. Somehow, the distribution of software for Windows still has
> the upper hand in terms of being easy and simple. At least for the end
> Having an AppImage of the latest GnuCash would, I guess, enable all Linux
> users to have the latest binary version without needing to build it
> themselves and/or depending on multitude of development tools and libraries.
> Is there anything preventing building and packaging the latest (either
> stable or nightly) version of GnuCash in this way? Have you thought about it
> before? Have you tried it already? What were the findings?
None of the core devs have had time to look into application bundles for Linux. Since the Windows and Mac bundles also have pretty much all of the dependency libraries and associated data in them I imagine that a Flatpack or similar would run to about the same size, 120-180MB.
More information about the gnucash-devel