Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher AppImage is still the simplest way for a user to run your app.
To get Mudlet (a FOSS text games client) all you need to do is go to https://www.mudlet.org/download, download the .tar, right-click to extract it and double-click to run. It really is that simple; experienced and unexperienced users alike across many different Linux distributions make it work. Try to replicate that with snap or flatpak - you won't be able to without messing in the terminal or relying on distro-specific distribution channels. Nothing beats AppImage for a truly distro agnostic image distribution format, and I'm speaking from having used it for years to distribute my software. BR On August 8, 2022, Vadim Peretokin via Interest <interest@qt- project.org> wrote: > On 8/8/22 16:09, Jörg Bornemann wrote: > > Mitch already pointed you to QTBUG-74940. The biggest question > > regarding a linuxdeployqt is: what exactly is the deployment format > > going to be? There's no standard way of deploying Linux > applications. > > There are many. > > > > The community contributions create AppImage packages. That seems > to > > be a reasonable choice. Other opinions? > > > Like Roland said, it has to be Flatpak. I haven't seen anyone talking > about AppImage in years, and Snap is too Ubuntu-specific. > > > windeployqt doesn't package anything though, so should linuxdeployqt? > macdeployqt only sort of does, with its dmg support. > > > Hamish > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
