Post #994669
2026-04-08 04:33 UTC
Your question is not Arch specific, it’s “should I use flatpaks?” And the answer in my opinion is probably no.
Flatpaks are a good idea to isolate certain applications and to provide a uniform way of installing packages. So there might be some apps that are not available in your native package manager, but do provide flatpaks. For those cases flatpaks are probably preferred. But Arch based distros have the AUR, so there are a lot of apps that aren’t packaged for Arch that you can still get as a native package. Sure, using the AUR is risky and if you’re not on actual Arch things might break sporadically because of mismatched dependencies (although I think CachyOS is full parity of packages with Arch, so that’s maybe more of a Manjaro warning).
But flatpaks are clunky, bloated, require annoying permissions to be set to do basic things, and require you to update two package managers to do a full system update. They are more appealing for systems where you don’t want to give users root access but still allow them to install programs, but for your own computer I have never seen the appeal.
Replies (3)
-
@Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world 2026-04-09 00:42
I partially disagree. I have found that some flatpaks are better than otherwise for updating the app. When I use the air branch of discord on arch, discord does not update automatically and I need to complete a system upgrade and modify a Jason file. The flatpak version updates automatically with no problems.
-
@tuhriel@discuss.tchncs.de 2026-04-08 10:36
I usually use the pacman repo and if it's not in there decide for this specific app if I use the AUR or flatpak version
-
@FukOui@lemmy.zip 2026-04-08 08:54
I guess you could put it that way. For most general applications, I prefer to use flatpak over pacman. Pacman and arch's repos to me are still very confusing over other package managers (dnf, apt, etc)