@cplusplus@programming.dev to Open Source@lemmy.mlEnglish • 13 hours agoWhy Veracrypt not flatpak?message-square7fedilinkarrow-up14arrow-down119
arrow-up1-15arrow-down1message-squareWhy Veracrypt not flatpak?@cplusplus@programming.dev to Open Source@lemmy.mlEnglish • 13 hours agomessage-square7fedilink
minus-square@ryannathans@aussie.zonelinkfedilink6•9 hours agoI would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn’t blend well with the flatpak sandbox
minus-squareLemongrablinkfedilink4•6 hours agoYou can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.
minus-square@ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkEnglish1•2 hours agoand then what’s the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?
minus-square@JustMarkov@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglish1•52 minutes ago and then what’s the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? Flatpaks is a universal package format, it works almost everywhere. Also, there are immutable distros, that use flatpak as the default package format.
I would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn’t blend well with the flatpak sandbox
You can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.
and then what’s the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?
Flatpaks is a universal package format, it works almost everywhere. Also, there are immutable distros, that use flatpak as the default package format.