• sol@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think a week is that long to wait for an open source project like this. I suspect as soon as they released 115 they got a deluge of bug reports that are probably keeping them occupied.

    Granted, I’m not personally affected because <smug>I use Arch btw</smug>. But on a serious note, it makes sense to me that “bleeding edge” distros where users expect the latest versions quickly would package Thunderbird for their repos, whereas those on more stability-focused distros would wait the couple of weeks for the Flatpak.

  • axzxc1236@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think thunderbird always delay major version upgrade until <version>.2.

    If you observe their changelog:

    115.0: only offer binary download, not as upgrade

    102.0: only offer binary download, not as upgrade

    102.1.2: only offer binary download, not as upgrade

    102.2: no such disclaimer

    They also has the same disclaimer for 91.x, that’s how Thunderbird decided to distribute update.

  • Zaphodquixote
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eh, I don’t at flatpak or snap unless I have no other choice, but i get why it would be annoying to have the delay.

    That being said, I wouldn’t be concerned until almost a month. It’s a big update that’s going to need more debugging than usual. Makes sense to hold back for a bit.

    • linuxisfun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Eh, I don’t at flatpak or snap unless I have no other choice

      I thought the same until I discovered that Flatpak gives me the power to restrict apps in their permissions, similar to firejail, but less cumbersome. Since then I actually prefer Flatpak over traditional packages (I even switched to Fedora Silverblue), as I have a global override that, for example, revokes permission to access the root of my home directory or to use the X11 display server.

      This allows me to keep a clean home directory, as applications are prevented from writing into my home directory (configuration files then automatically get stored in the Flatpak directory ~/.var instead) or, even worse, into executable files, such as ~/.bashrc. I can also be confident that applications use Wayland, if they support it, and not a less secure display server (X11). Applications that don’t support Wayland yet can either be made to run under Wayland (Chromium / Electron) or I have to grant those applications permission to actually use an X11 server (Bottles / WINE, Steam).

      On the other hand you can also opt into punching as many holes as possible into the sandbox, for example by granting applications the permission to access a local shell. That might be necessary for development tools, such as VSCodium. The thing I like about Flatpak is that it offers this kind of flexibility and you can decide on a per-application basis which system resources the application can or can not access.

      Sure, the permission model isn’t perfect (e. g. D-Bus access), but for my use-case it is a huge improvement and it gives me more flexibility with selecting my distribution, as I can get the very same up-to-date applications anywhere via Flatpak.

    • linuxisfun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Eh, I don’t at flatpak or snap unless I have no other choice

      I thought the same until I discovered that Flatpak gives me the power to restrict apps in their permissions, similar to flatseal, but less cumbersome. Since then I actually prefer Flatpak over traditional packages (I even switched to Fedora Silverblue), as I have a global override that, for example, revokes permission to access the root of my home directory or to use the X11 display server.

      This allows me to keep a clean home directory, as applications are prevented from writing into my home directory (configuration files then automatically get stored in the Flatpak directory ~/.var instead) or, even worse, into executable files, such as ~/.bashrc. I can also be confident that applications use Wayland, if they support it, and not a less secure display server (X11). Applications that don’t support Wayland yet can either be made to run under Wayland (Chromium / Electron) or I have to grant those applications permission to actually use an X11 server (Bottles / WINE, Steam).

      On the other hand you can also opt into punching as many holes as possible into the sandbox, for example by granting applications the permission to access a local shell. That might be necessary for development tools, such as VSCodium. The thing I like about Flatpak is that it offers this kind of flexibility and you can decide on a per-application basis which system resources the application can or can not access.

      Sure, the permission model isn’t perfect (e. g. D-Bus access), but for my use-case it is a huge improvement and it gave me more flexibility with selecting my distribution, as I can get up-to-date applications anywhere via Flatpak.

  • Justin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m using Evolution as I prefer their interface. I’m curious to give the new Thunderbird a try when there’s a flatpak.

    • Virtuous8897OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same here, actually. I switched to Evolution a year or so ago from T-bird and I’m curious if v115 will leapfrog Evolution. I’m optimistic that it will.

  • teolan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They do progressive roll-out. With last year’s update the Flatpak also waited for the to say “this is stable enough, ship it”

  • mothringer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know Gentoo has it masked for testing with this note, which is probably the same reason why other distros without the same mechanism don’t have it at all:

    Testing. An upgrade from 102 isn’t recommended due to downgrading most likely not being possible. Back up your profile before attempting. Fresh install should be fine. Bug #910229

  • Mane25@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes I actually checked whether my flatpaks were updating properly the other day because of this. I think being the official package if anything I would have expected Flathub to have it first, or at least within a few hours. I understand that things don’t always go to plan but starting to get a bit impatient here with the lack of explanation.

    • Virtuous8897OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hear ya man! You do you. I don’t do native installs for anything.

  • drhoopoe@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m on it now on arch. TBH it’s kinda making my life harder because some things I’m used to using have moved. I’m sure I’ll see the advantages of it at some point.

  • selawdivad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think they said in the release article that they were going to roll 115 out slowly because it’s such a big change.

  • danielfgom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s in the Snap Store as a release candidate. But sure if it will let you install it but Canonical seems to have it and be in the verification stage before releasing to stable.