Broken OBS Studio Flatpak presented as official package (#39) · Issues · fedora / Special Interest Groups (SIGs) / Fedora Flatpak SIG / Fedora Flatpaks · GitLab
gitlab.com
The unofficial OBS Studio Flatpak on Fedora Flatpaks is, seemingly, poorly packaged and broken, leading to users complaining upstream thinking they are...

As an update to everyone following, I had a meeting today with the Flatpak SIG and Fedora Project Leader, which was a very good conversation. We discussed the issues, how we got here, and what next steps are. For anyone not interested in the specific details, the OBS Project is no longer requesting a removal of IP or rebrand of the OBS Studio application provided by Fedora Flatpaks. This issue should be used for tracking of the other specific, technical issues, that the Fedora Flatpak does still have, which I will address below. From our perspective, there were two key points that we feel are the most important to address:

  • The issue with the Qt runtime having regression
  • The issue of not knowing where to report bugs for what is a downstream package

For the first bullet, this should be resolved with the update to the latest runtime, which includes Qt 6.8.2 that has the fixes for those regressions in it. For the second, this is obviously a much larger issue to tackle, especially for a project as large as Fedora. We had some very good discussion on how this might be accomplished in the medium-long term, but don’t consider it a blocker at this point. We plan to stay engaged and offer our perspective as an upstream project. In addition to those two previously blocking issues, we discussed a handful of other problems with the Fedora Flatpak. I’ll keep the details high level in the interest of brevity on this update:

  • OBS Studio running on Mesa LLLVM pipe instead of with hardware acceleration (i.e. the GPU)
  • X11 Fallback leading to OBS crashing
  • VLC Plugin not behaving as expected in the sandbox, needs testing
  • Shipping of third-party plugins in the Fedora Flatpak

The discussion was positive and they are actively working to resolve those issues as well, which should hopefully only affect a small number of users. I would like to give a final thank you to Yaakov and the FPL for taking the time to talk to us today.

  • GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml
    461·
    3 days ago

    Why is Fedora packaging their own flatpak of OBS in the first place, when a seemingly working, official one is available on Flathub?

    • Leaflet@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      411·
      3 days ago

      Fedora aims for FOSS, software unencumbered by patents, and security.

      Flathub explicitly allows proprietary and patented software.

      And since they want upstream apps to publish their apps and not scare them away, security isn’t as strong. Apps are allowed to use EOL runtimes and apps roll their own vendored dependencies. Fedora Flatpaks solve this problem by building all their flatpaks from their distro packages.

      • GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml
        13·
        3 days ago

        Oh yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that Flathub was a default flatpak repo in Fedora anyway.

        But yes, always with these trade-offs. It’s bad when package maintainers package software, and it’s bad when software developers package software…

        • Leaflet@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          8·
          3 days ago

          Flathub isn’t quite default, but it’s an option in the setup screen. It’s also the lowest priority.

      • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
        31·
        3 days ago

        Flathub explicitly allows proprietary and patented software.

        What’s wrong with that?

        • GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml
          151·
          3 days ago

          If Fedora wants to promote FOSS then it would make sense to just have it’s users enable Flathub if they want to. Instead of outright promote a repository that promotes proprietary software.

          If you meant it as moral question, then then answer would probably be that proprietary software does’nt guarantee the same user freedoms as free software. And thus does’nt let users control the software that runs on their own computers.

          • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
            29·
            3 days ago

            Flathub doesn’t “promote” anything, it’s a software repository, not an advertising agency.

            proprietary software does’nt guarantee the same user freedoms as free software

            then…don’t use it?

            You are going to great lengths just to break software, with the benefit being less software available…!?

            • Bilb!@lem.monsterEnglish
              61·
              3 days ago

              It’s trivial to enable flathub, so it’s not meaningfully reducing the availability of software. It’s just a default.

              • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
                34·
                3 days ago

                It’s trivial to enable flathub

                It’s trivial in the sense of clicking buttons, it’s not trivial in the sense that it’s not even something who comes from another platform even considers. That you can choose where your software comes from.

                It’s not trivial in the sense that it’s causing problems for devs by breaking their packages for the purpose of making less software readily available to their users.

            • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
              61·
              2 days ago

              Has a software update ever changed something in a way you dislike? When it’s proprietary software your choices are to:

              • tolerate the anti-feature
              • downgrade and keep using an older version instead (if feasible also has demerits)
              • hope someone reverse engineers a work-around
              • stop using the software

              When the software is free (libre) then a communities can change it (e.g. removing an anti-feature) via the source code.

              Sadly it’s not enough to simply “then don’t use it” - proprietary software proliferates society (interacting socially, with the government, with banks, etc). Since it’s better to be in control of your own computing anyway then might as well promote the values of software freedom.

              • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
                29·
                3 days ago

                Yes, yes, we get it. Proprietary software bad. Don’t use it. Again I ask: what is the problem?

                Sadly it’s not enough to simply “then don’t use it”

                …why not?

                proprietary software proliferates society (interacting socially, with the government, with banks, etc).

                So don’t use it?

                might as well promote the values of software freedom.

                Once again, making it available is not “promoting” it.

                Listen, I wish all software was FOSS, but it’s not, and it never will be. It’s not feasible. Even when it is, it’s often terrible and the proprietary ones are way better, because they can actually afford to develop it properly.

                • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  71·
                  3 days ago

                  Communication is difficult. I felt like I gave a useful answer but evidentially it was not an answer for you. I hope someone else can answer your questions.

                  • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
                    17·
                    3 days ago

                    You ignored the question that I asked in favor of one that I did not.

        • Atemu@lemmy.ml
          3·
          2 days ago

          Offering patented software would open Fedora (a RedHat product mind you) up to legal issues in places that know software patents (primarily the U.S.).

            • Atemu@lemmy.ml
              3·
              2 days ago

              “No your honour, we do not offer users any patented software, we merely ship a system which directs users to this other totally unrelated entity that we are fully aware ships patented software.” will not hold up in court.

              I also imagine RH would simply like control over the repository content they offer to users by default. Flathub acts more like a 3rd party user repository than a “proper” distro.

              • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
                1·
                2 days ago

                will not hold up in court.

                LOL it absolutely will…

                I also imagine RH would simply like control over the repository content they offer to users by default

                Linux is fundamentally about the user being in control.

                • Atemu@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  None of this puts the user out of control; they’re free to add the Flathub repository should they wish to do so.

                  • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
                    11·
                    2 days ago

                    None of this puts the user out of control

                    “control” was your word, not mine.

                    they’re free to add the Flathub repository should they wish to do so.

                    Yes and they’re “free” to change the priority as well. The problem is people ARE NOT doing that, and, once again, that is causing problems for the folks who build the software, for absolutely no gain other than removing the availability of software.