Advanced

Linux Mint Disabling Unverified Flatpaks By Default

Posted by Scott_Ruecker on · 8 comments
Phoronix
Mail this story
Print this story

The Linux Mint project is out with its monthly newsletter that highlights recent progress made on this Ubuntu (and Debian) derived, desktop-focused Linux distribution. In May they worked out enhancements to Linux Mint's software manager and also continued working on optimizing their package archive hosting...

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Groups: Debian, Ubuntu, Linux, Mint; Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (8)

How many unverified flatpacks are there? I have no idea. And how can Chrome be one of them?

Chrome is the most used browser on the planet as far as I know. How can it be unverified? Unverified flatpacks supposedly have no developer certification or verification or some such? How is that possible with Chrome? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Again, I am more than welcome to be instructed and informed as to what the facts are and complexities of this issue are by those in the know. Please inform me.
There were incidents as recently as months ago of rogue flakpaks and snaps
"However, there is a bit of a problem with Flatpak apps that are "unverified", meaning, a Flatpak package maintained by someone else (not the official developer/company)." https://news.itsfoss.com/linux-mint-22-matrix-flatpak/
It makes sense. I'm not arguing that. I just can't believe that Chrome isn't officially maintained by Google. How is that possible? Who maintains it then?

I know that it is based on Chromium, but it isn't just Chromium with a different colored logo. It's different in a lot of ways. It's an official Google product if I'm not mistaken.
The packaging is not done by Google:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909

They found a blunder.
So because it is not packaged by Google that means that it's not maintained by them in general? It's updated by them isn't it? Still doesn't make sense to me.
Trust, but verify. That "but verify" part doesn't get enforced enough.

Viz. Jia Tan.
OpenBSD has been extra careful to drop packages only a single author maintains and nobody reads (at commit level)

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post