this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
48 points (98.0% liked)
Linux
64525 readers
83 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your question is not Arch specific, it's "should I use flatpaks?" And the answer in my opinion is probably no.
Flatpaks are a good idea to isolate certain applications and to provide a uniform way of installing packages. So there might be some apps that are not available in your native package manager, but do provide flatpaks. For those cases flatpaks are probably preferred. But Arch based distros have the AUR, so there are a lot of apps that aren't packaged for Arch that you can still get as a native package. Sure, using the AUR is risky and if you're not on actual Arch things might break sporadically because of mismatched dependencies (although I think CachyOS is full parity of packages with Arch, so that's maybe more of a Manjaro warning).
But flatpaks are clunky, bloated, require annoying permissions to be set to do basic things, and require you to update two package managers to do a full system update. They are more appealing for systems where you don't want to give users root access but still allow them to install programs, but for your own computer I have never seen the appeal.
I partially disagree. I have found that some flatpaks are better than otherwise for updating the app. When I use the air branch of discord on arch, discord does not update automatically and I need to complete a system upgrade and modify a Jason file. The flatpak version updates automatically with no problems.
What is the air branch? Discord has a package on pacman, so it should just get updated with your normal system update, there's no config or anything that could prevent that, pacman doesn't care. What JSON do you have to edit and why?
Build_info.json
I have only ever had this issue with discord on arch. Whenever discord has an update, it will not fetch the update, but it tells me that an update can be downloaded.
This is the situation with discord through aur. https://karx.xyz/blog/discord/
I do not know the air branch
Also, I am trying to convince my friends to switch to element instead of discord, but they have been stubborn.
The issue you describe is not Arch specific and it's not an issue. Using a package manager means using a program to manage your packages. Things can't auto-upgrade, that breaks the point of a package manager.
Of course, if you install discord through pacman, then pacman manages the update.
As for the JSON file that's a very hacky approach, discord shouldn't outright fail to launch if there is an update. And in fact the Arch wiki says it has a flag to skip the version check completely:
More info on https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Discord
The flatpak version of discord is able to fetch for updates when launching the app without needing to system update. And for some reason it is specifically on a system update. Updating only discord does not update the version even after modifying the build_info.json. and I could disable updates, but that shouldn't be necessary unless discord is pushing updates that are actively making the experience worse.
You're completely missing the point. Discord is a chat app, not a package manager, therefore it should NOT update things EVER. You're complaining that discord tries to do something it shouldn't, fails and somehow you seem to think that's pacman's fault.
The "issue" doesn't exist on flatpaks because discord probably checks if it's installed via flatpak and runs an update using the flatpak command without your say so. The "solution" is to stop discord from trying to be "smart" and failing and let it be updated when pacman decides to.
The idea of a package manager is to let it manage your packages, if you want self-updating apps you don't need a package manager, and good luck with dependencies and overlapping libraries.
I guess you could put it that way. For most general applications, I prefer to use flatpak over pacman. Pacman and arch's repos to me are still very confusing over other package managers (dnf, apt, etc)
What makes it confusing to you?
I usually use the pacman repo and if it's not in there decide for this specific app if I use the AUR or flatpak version
Yup, that sounds like a good approach. I could even see people doing Pacman -> Flatpaks -> AUR and it would make sense to me.