Closed isabelroses closed 6 months ago
Opted not to add the flatpak instructions in the new README because it is frequently out of date, and we do not maintain it. With the install script now available, don't see a reason to keep this old cruft around?
we do not maintain it
The previous flatpak instructions were not about an installable but giving flatpak access to the themes dir.
Oh, I see. We could add it back, sure.
Opted not to add the flatpak instructions in the new README because it is frequently out of date, and we do not maintain it.
If we're going to add flatpak instructions into the README again, let's make it explicit that we did not create a flatpak theme and do not maintain it.
If we're going to add flatpak instructions into the README again, let's make it explicit that we did not create a flatpak theme and do not maintain it.
maybe you should put a warn on the flatpak instructions about that when flatpak is added back
Oh, I see. We could add it back, sure.
so i could make a pr that brings flatpak back?
so i could make a pr that brings flatpak back?
Yes. But preferably with a warning saying we don't maintain the package. But this is how you can let flatpak see the files.
Yes. But preferably with a warning saying we don't maintain the package. But this is how you can let flatpak see the files.
oh alr
i created a pr (#221)
Not sure is this is only on my machine or not, but I had to also symlink the themes from $HOME/.local/share/themes
to $HOME/.themes
(just like the old documentation) and override the flatpak configuration (either by CLI or Flatseal) to expose $HOME/.themes
. Not sure why, but without it, some application like FontDownloader and Extension Manager didn't pick up the theme.
@aaulia Hmm, interesting. We altered the guidelines / our scripts to use ~/.local/share/themes
because ~/.themes
is the older standard for themes. If we can get some more reproductions of this issue we can definitely look into adding it to the README!
@nullishamy its likely those are some older applications that still rely on the older standard and would need that symlink
Possibly, but if it isn't a widespread issue I'd rather avoid promoting old / bad practice in our README :+1:
Is there an existing issue outlining your improvement?
What would you like to see added and/or changed?
Readd the old https://github.com/catppuccin/gtk/tree/v0.7.5?tab=readme-ov-file#for-flatpak-users