[Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?

Vadim Peretokin vperetokin at hey.com
Tue Aug 9 08:03:25 CEST 2022

Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher
AppImage is still the simplest way for a user to run your app. 

To get Mudlet (a FOSS text games client) all you need to do is go to
https://www.mudlet.org/download, download the .tar, right-click to
extract it and double-click to run. 

It really is that simple; experienced and unexperienced users alike
across many different Linux distributions make it work.

Try to replicate that with snap or flatpak - you won't be able to
without messing in the terminal or relying on distro-specific
distribution channels. Nothing beats AppImage for a truly distro
agnostic image distribution format, and I'm speaking from having used it
for years to distribute my software.


On August 8, 2022, Vadim Peretokin via Interest <interest at qt-
project.org> wrote:
> On 8/8/22 16:09, Jörg Bornemann wrote:
> > Mitch already pointed you to QTBUG-74940.  The biggest question 
> > regarding a linuxdeployqt is: what exactly is the deployment format 
> > going to be?  There's no standard way of deploying Linux
> applications. 
> > There are many.
> >
> > The community contributions create AppImage packages.  That seems
> to 
> > be a reasonable choice.  Other opinions?
> Like Roland said, it has to be Flatpak. I haven't seen anyone talking 
> about AppImage in years, and Snap is too Ubuntu-specific.
> windeployqt doesn't package anything though, so should linuxdeployqt? 
> macdeployqt only sort of does, with its dmg support.
> Hamish
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20220808/e4c092d3/attachment.htm>

More information about the Interest mailing list