Add "Used by" section to Readme/doc

[rugk]

I have heard that the Chromium flatpak and/or things like VSCode flatpaks want to or use this library which looks awesome (without knowing the details), given it solves a fundamental problem we had with Chromium applications in flatpak.

Anyway, I miss a short list somewhere (in the Readme it is fine enough, or on a new page in the wiki e.g.), where a list of "users" of this here is presented. Like "Used by: [This flatpak](), [and this flatpak]() and [that one]()"… probably just with proper bullet points/formatting… This is both good "advertisement"/reference and useful for users to know that proper sandboxing is in place in these apps (as far as I understood the feature), so that no sandboxes need to be disabled inside of the flatpak.

[Erick555]

There are many dozens of flatpaks that use this so it would be hard to list them all. Generally every chromium based flatpak should use this and if it doesn't then it's a bug (not missing feature) that may be reported in relevant repo. Therefore listing somewhere flatpaks which don't use zypak may be easier and make more sense than the other way around.

[rugk]

Welll… maybe the most relevant big ones would be good.

Generally every chromium based flatpak should use this and if it doesn't then it's a bug (not missing feature) that may be reported in relevant repo.

Well… in any case I also think it's very useful to use this, though integration may not be always easy. As you can see com.visualstudio.code e.g. already works on adding it and as for another VSCode-fork (VsCodium) I've opened an issue here: https://github.com/flathub/com.vscodium.codium/issues/55

[refi64]

Hmm I'm not sure how entirely useful this would be, that being said it might also inspire a bit more confidence in using what appears to be a largely random repository to run your applications :sweat_smile:

[rugk]

Indeed, this was my point. Without such an information, I just don't see whether this is a de-facto "industry standard" for Chromium-based flatpaks or whether it is jiust a proof-of-concept side project. This is hard to judge and such a small list would indeed increase trust and foster further adoption…

[Erick555]

Hmm I'm not sure how entirely useful this would be, that being said it might also inspire a bit more confidence in using what appears to be a largely random repository to run your applications

I wonder if it's possible to move this repo under flatpak umbrella on github? That would increase confidence for the project even more.

[rugk]

BTW seeing your solution, I'd argue even more trust can really be gained by linking and listing the applications that actually use it (and the link proves it). Because everyone can say the majority of the apps uses it, you get my point, don't you hehe? :upside_down_face: