I assume it doesn’t, but thought I’d ask.

I really like the principles behind both gentoo and flatpak, but right now I can only do the gentoo way or the flatpak way (and I’ve opted for gentoo’s for now).

What I’d love to have from flatpak:

  • container like sandboxing and isolation
  • customizable sandboxing and permissions

What I’d love to have from gentoo:

  • powerful build system building packages from source
  • global declarative management of compilation options
  • easy patches
  • easy to add packages that aren’t in repos
  • support for many architectures or setups
  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    91·
    1 year ago

    At that point you might as well use a Docker type container in which to build your software from source and deploy in the container.

    • hallettj@beehaw.orgEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      But Flatpak has its fancy “portals” to connect each app with the specific resource it needs which you don’t get with Docker.

      Also if the goal is to limit access of apps you don’t want to fully trust, I think Docker doesn’t have the appropriate security properties. Here’s a quote from the readme for Bubblewrap (the sandboxing tool that Flatpak and Nixpak use),

      Many container runtime tools like systemd-nspawn, docker, etc. focus on providing infrastructure for system administrators and orchestration tools (e.g. Kubernetes) to run containers.

      These tools are not suitable to give to unprivileged users, because it is trivial to turn such access into a fully privileged root shell on the host.

    • Cyclohexane
      OPM
      2·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think Docker is comparable to bubble wrap. The latter is a lot more flexible. Docker is a pain with GUIs, and difficult to have a customizable way to “break” isolation when you need to, like having applications talk to each other or exchange files, etc.