App Image or AUR package
App Image or AUR package
If you have to choose between using an App Image, from the developpers official site or an AUR package (or apt e.g), what do you choose?
38 comments
-
I prefer AppImages. I find system-wide installations risky in the long run, and don't mind managing each software myself. Plus, often I have to use super old software, and when the current programs become old themselves, it's useful, I think, that they're as independent as they can from dependencies that may or may not be available anymore. However, still using
apt downloadjust in case as that variant of the command also downloads dependencies.
-
Package manager, much higher chance I won’t forget to update it
-
My personal order:
Repositories > AUR > Making an own AUR package > Making an own package not in AUR > Flatpak > Using an alternative to that application > consider if I really need it > AppImage
-
-
Why do you consider AppImages as last resort?
Mainly because you cannot manage them properly.
Installing from the repos I have pacman, from the AUR I can use one of the various AUR helpers (most of them can forward repo package updates to pacman, so I really have just one command to update the system and all AUR packages).
When making my own packages I usually also put them in the AUR (plus, it is super easy to do make an own package and put in in the AUR) – and from there an aUR helper takes care about updates. Flatpaks can also be updated very easy by just running one command.
So: All of those have a specific location where they install and allow me to start them easily because they put a script/link somewhere in
$PATH. All of those can be easily maintained and updated.Last time I checked, AppImages had none of those. Neither could I easily update all of them on my system, nor is there a dedicated location to place them, nor is there an “unified” (i.e. something in
$PATH) way of starting them. I have to manually check for updates, re-download the whole thing, replace the current AppImage file in an arbitrary location.This is just how I do not want to maintain my programs.
-
-
-
Using app images eliminates the chance of breaking your system to almost zero. But updating them could be an inconvenience.
-
AppImages can support selfupdating I do use few of them which support this feature.
-
They are great if you want to stay on a certain version though.
-
-
Personally, I prefer installation via the package manager... Saves some steps and I've not had a problem using this procedure since the 90's...
AppImage is fine and all but there are some extra steps required to have that "app" appear in the OS menu and such...
And, as an old fuck, I'm not fond of referring to the software installed on my computer as "app". It's "software" or "a program".
And, yes. Phone is also a computer and "app" is the appropriate word usage on that platform...
I know. Semantics. But it's what I'm used to.
🤷♂️ 🤷♂️
-
This person gets it!
-
-
AUR, when I can. I run my own binary package repo. App images are an interesting concept, but usually they are compiled against ancient versions of glibc for increased compatibility. Optimizations and CVE patches may or may not be applied, LD lookups are longer, etc.
-
Aur ftw.
But if I need to compile a large project then appimage
-
With the AUR, there is an “it depends” since AUR packages are unofficial and variable in quality.
That said, I have a strong bias for installing the distro package over using AppImage or Flatpak.
There are three reasons not to use the distro package:
- the package is not available
- the package is too old
- the package maintainer cannot be trusted
My #1 reason for using Arch is to eliminate 1 and 2. In my experience, the AUR is almost always fine for #3.
Even when I use another distro, I put Distrobox with Arch on it and get any of the packages that the distro does not have from there.
The only Flatpak I have had to install has been pgAdmin.
-
I enjoy CachyOS distro packages for this reason. Eliminated all three in one fell swoop. Very few packages I've had to go outside of their ecosystem for.
-
Same
-
-
I'd pick the AUR package 100% of the time because I hate everything about the idea of appimages and the like.
-
I don't like App Image because I have to manage everything myself or use a helper that may or may not be able to manage everything about all App Images.
But sometimes the dev supplied package is the only way to get an up to date package.
-
Appimage. I oily use a few of them, and manage them with GearLever.
-
I always use distro packaging, if it's available.
-
I use what's packaged in my distro's repositories, unless I need a specific version, or the software isn't packaged at all.
-
Pacman /w chaotic-aur, otherwise AUR with yay
-
It depends, there are no hard rules. I have a preference for the native package manager with pacman and repository of my distribution. I also would like to use AUR more often, but it depends who is maintaining that package. It also depends if there is a Flatpak available. Some AppImages have an auto update for itself, so I download it only once and use the applications own update functionality manually.
The good thing about AppImages are that they usually don't require super user privileges to install (in other words use) them and I can also archive them very easily.
-
I usually go Flatpak > system package (rpm) > AppImage > direct download. But it also depends on what I need.
- Flatpak usually gives the latest version and is nicely integrated with everything.
- System packages are usually outdated but use less disk space.
- I only use AppImages if that's the only way I can get the version I need. I also have it integrated with appimaged.
- Directly downloading a tar.gz or similar I try to avoid as much as possible because it isn't integrated with anything.
-
Depends on the release model of the distro and on the kind of software.
-
I prefer distros if available, but in some cases the version in the distros can suck. A solid example, and this could 100% be user error, but I used aur to get Picard on my tablet, but there was no app menu bar. Like at all, no window settings in the world made a difference, and the global menu didn't show anything either. So I couldn't change settings at all. I removed the aur package and installed the flatpak, everything worked no problem.
Flatpaks are okay, but due to laziness, I'm not proficient with making them interact well with each other.
App images can be great, but also annoying depending on how your system handles them. On a Debian based machine it would "install" the app image as if it were a normal app, and in some cases even check for updates. In garuda I have to manually go to the file and execute it each time. I'm no Linux master, so I could probably do something in garuda to make it work similar to Debian, but I only have one app there that I care about and I'm lazy...
I don't like snaps, they seem finicky to me.
If the Dev has their own recommended source, package, or whatever I try to stick to that. I.e. if they say their focus is on an app image, but aur has it, and there's a flatpak, and x y z options, I'll try the app image, and if that does what I need it to, I stick with it. If they recommend snap I try to find another app or another option to install.
-
I really like App-images. For the most part, they just work, download, run, done. And sometimes you want the flexibility to install something the distro's pacakage manager doesn't give you (or doesn't have the latest version of). It's a little extra work to put the app in system menus, etc though.
Package manger still preferred. Having the system deal with updates and dependencies is nice.
AUR is still good, but I'd take the App Image. Sometimes these work for me, sometimes they don't. Still have to manually update them, AFAIK.
38 comments