Open TingPing opened 5 years ago
Indeed I just came across this. There is inconsistent handling of EOL things...
flatpak remote-ls
hides EOL items:
$ flatpak remote-ls flathub | grep org.videolan.VLC.Plugin.bdj
Bluray Java menus (BDJ) plugin for VLC org.videolan.VLC.Plugin.bdj 3-19.08
But flatpak install
will just suggest EOL items for installation!
$ flatpak install flathub org.videolan.VLC.Plugin.bdj
Similar refs found for ‘org.videolan.VLC.Plugin.bdj’ in remote ‘flathub’ (system):
1) runtime/org.videolan.VLC.Plugin.bdj/x86_64/3-19.08
2) runtime/org.videolan.VLC.Plugin.bdj/x86_64/3-18.08
Which do you want to use (0 to abort)? [0-2]: 0
FWIW, I am using Flatpak 1.4.3
To address the immediate issue in this report, I would suggest to just add an "(eol)".
But we should maybe have a general policy for this. How do we expect eol'ed refs to be treated ?
How do we expect eol'ed refs to be treated ?
FWIW, as a flatpak app maintainer, if something is present in the repo I expect it to be installable if I am precise enough (i.e. I know what I'm doing and I can specify the ref exactly) but as a user, I probably don't want to see them at all. <\/UnsolicitedOpinion> :-)
I think a sane default is not showing them and maybe having a flag to show eol where they are labeled.
If an eol app is the only result maybe still show it?
I was having my first ever interaction with flatpak today, and got this issue right upfront, on the first package I tried to install (FontForge). Came to the internet for rescue to find an issue open about 3 years ago, with no solution. Just bumping this issue up to get more attention. Using flatpak version 1.6.5
This was originally reported here: https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/issues/3686
If you do
flatpak install fontforge
it will find bothio.github.FontForge
(which is EOL) andorg.fontforge.FontForge
.The output should be clear which one is EOL so the user can install the correct one.