This adds a reference to the unofficial Flatpak repo for the EduVPN Linux client
docs: add Flatpak install method #697
WebSpider/linux-app:add-flatpak-doc into master It's marked as unofficial but it still has: org.eduvpn.EduVPN as id (from:
id:org.eduvpn.EduVPN). can that be fixed?
Yeah sure. This id was chosen after consultation with the flathub maintainers. (削除) Would org.eduvpn.EduVPNUnofficial be acceptable ? (削除ここまで)
I will pick an id using the pages URL and update the PR.
@jwijenbergh this has now been updated, the new id is page.codeberg.WebSpider.EduVPN
It didn't follow all the discussions across the different "Add flatpak support" issues. But what is the reason to reference an unofficial version in this repository? Is it just temporary until an official version is available?
@WebSpider As you already worked on metainfo.xml, could you create a metainfo.xml for this repository?
- For the beginning the screenshots from https://docs.eduvpn.org/client/linux/index.html could be used for the screenshot section.
- For the release section, a link to the changes might be sufficient and is easier to maintain.
<release version="4.7.2" date="2026年04月24日"> <url type="details">https://codeberg.org/eduVPN/linux-app/src/branch/master/CHANGES.md#4-7-2-2026年04月24日</url> </release>
P.S. !669 should make WebSpider/eduvpn-flatpak@b885428524/patches/client/001-utils-add-flatpak-prefix.patch obsolete.
P.P.S. thanks for working on a flatpak version
Since @jwijenbergh seems to be working on a rewrite of the client right now, it might be a good idea to wait a bit before proceeding with the Flatpak, @a-andre . I also have to say that, in its current form, it doesn't make sense to release it. If anything, it should be an "official" Flatpak on the public Flathub remote, in my opinion.
I'd be happy to take a look at it if you'd like. (I created and maintain the easyroam flatpak, so I have some experience with this.)
The reasons for not making this an official eduvpn flatpak are in the end up to the eduvpn team.
I have discussed with the team that supporting this and also supporting a flathub submission is not problem for me.
What i thibk is lacking is handling an app upgrade, so i'd like to add that bit, which will probably be once the rewrite thats coming has been released.
let's do it like this and if it works well enough and the maintenance burden is tiny, we can make it an official thing
No due date set.
No dependencies set.
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?