cplusplus@programming.dev to Open SourceEnglish · 13 hours agoWhy Veracrypt not flatpak?message-squaremessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up14arrow-down119
arrow-up1-15arrow-down1message-squareWhy Veracrypt not flatpak?cplusplus@programming.dev to Open SourceEnglish · 13 hours agomessage-square7fedilink
minus-squareryannathans@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up6·9 hours agoI would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn’t blend well with the flatpak sandbox
minus-squareLemongrab@lemmy.onelinkfedilinkarrow-up4·6 hours agoYou can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.
minus-squareReversalHatchery@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 hours agoand then what’s the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?
minus-squareJustMarkovlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·60 minutes ago and then what’s the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? Flatpaks is a universal package format, it works almost everywhere. Also, there are immutable distros, that use flatpak as the default package format.
I would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn’t blend well with the flatpak sandbox
You can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.
and then what’s the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?
Flatpaks is a universal package format, it works almost everywhere. Also, there are immutable distros, that use flatpak as the default package format.