Flatpak/AppImage Pros/Cons

Hi, what would be (if any) the pros and cons of using Delta Chat on desktop via Flatpak or AppImage?
What would be the differences?
I’m trying to decide which one use, both over Debian Testing and Arch.
Right now Flatpak seems to consume much more disk-space than the AppImage, but is this correct?, or there’s other disk-space that AppImage uses beyond the size of the AppImage file itself?
Any info/insights/recommendations/links would be most welcomed.
Thanks a lot!

Flatpak consumes much more because it pulls in a lot of dependencies that are not actually used by Delta Chat Desktop, but this is ok if you use multiple applications via Flatpak as they will share dependencies. If you don’t use Flatpak for anything but Delta Chat, AppImage will consume less space.

There is no autoupdate for AppImages, so you will have to watch for new versions yourself.

On Arch you can install Delta Chat Desktop from AUR: AUR (en) - deltachat-desktop-git

1 Like

Hi, @link2xt, thanks a lot for your answer!, very informative.

In the Arch case: AFAIK installing from AUR means to compile the software/package and recompile for each update, is this correct?, do you know how demanding this is in Delta Chat’s case (in terms of CPU-time, let’s say, and dependencies’ disk-space)?, just to have an idea (cost/benefit) comparing to the other options.

Thanks a lot again, kind regards!

It will take something around 15 minutes to compile the whole package I guess, core compilation is the most time-consuming part of it.

@Jikstra is maintaining this PKGBUILD by the way, so it’s sort of “official”.

1 Like

Cool, excellent, @link2xt, and thanks a lot again!
Best regards.

Though keep in mind that the AUR version is git-master so could be unstable, depending on when you update.

There is also AUR (en) - deltachat-desktop which is community maintained by tercean which used the tagged git version of the latest release.

1 Like