Linux app should be packaged as flatpak / appimage / deb / rpm and tar zst

CyberSphinx

When Orion for GNU/Linux finishes development it should be packaged inna variety of types and avoid the boring method of just choosing deb, this will help the GNU/Linux community.

Cloud

It would be a "nice to have", but unless the team / available resources grow considerably, the devs should probably only do a Flatpak app. That should cover the majority of desktop Linux users.

k3nsh0

I agree with Cloud - Linux folks would be best served with a Flatpak version.

After many years on macOS I have only fairly recently switched over to the Linux platform. I treasure the flexibility and independence this step has given me to move away from American Big Tech monopolies. However, I also want to keep the stability and convenience that I have known on the macOS platform - which is why I have switched over to an immutable Linux distribution (Universal Blue/ Bluefin).

Henceforth my sole feature request towards the Orion Linux browser: please make the browser available as a Flatpak installation, as this is the preferred installation method for the Universal Blue immutable distributions / and is also agnostic for majority of other distributions.

CyberSphinx

they could provide instructions so third party mainstainers can, I could do rpms and aur packages if required, i did the proton-autheticator-bin and ghostty packages on arch an certain points

Yannick

@Cloud is right (for now)

hergezod

If I may suggest, please consider packaging the browser in DEB targeting Debian Stable.
Not everyone uses Flatpaks and even AppImages I use only if there are no other alternatives provided (e.g. the app isn't open-source)
That should allow it to work on most derivative systems such as Ubuntu and Mint as well.

CyberSphinx

Yes, and with just a deb you could easily make rpms and aur packages.

23oreironfb0609

.deb or .AppImage are arguably the objectively-best method of distribution to the "masses" (multi-distro etc.)...

.deb can be easily rebuilt/distributed as mentioned above
.AppImage can be extracted and used however.

if flatpak is someone's preference, that's no big deal, but we should pretend it's the right tool for this Alpha distribution job - I'm grateful for the Alpha either way 🙂

koala

Just installed 2.49.1 (WebKit development) from Flatpak
Ubuntu 24.04.3 LTS x86_64

Nice to have Flatpak as easy install method for testing. Cheers!

hergezod

I also agree that an AppImage, DEB or just a portable build like Ungoogled Chromium does would be better.
For me the main disadvantages of Flatpak are bloat as I need to pull a whole desktop environment just to run 1 small app and the fact that their sandboxing comes with security concerns. I emailed Kagi when I received a link to the alpha but they suggested I leave feedback here so here goes.

koala

hergezod I agree I would not use flatpak for anything security critical.
For alpha testing, I suppose that's reasonable. Would prefer AppImage or DEB at some stage.