Bitwig in Flatpak

[abique]

What's the downside so far of using the flatpak vs the deb?
Because it does isolate the application right? Can you access all your files, sounds and projects from your home directory?

[abique]

By the way could vst be distributed using flatpak as well? Because it would be weird to install the daw as flatpak but not the vst right?
Also when you install bitwig as flatpak how do you access the vsts from ~/.vst and /usr/.../vst ?

[antic604]

Sorry, I'm really stupid when it comes to Linux (and probably other topics, too...) so can anyone explain in simple words why this is awesome?

[abique]

Because when we distribute Bitwig we make a .deb which can be installed on a distribution based on debian (so quite a lot). While Flatpak is available on virtually every Linux distribution. The second point would be to get some visibility on the Flathub, a place where one can search for applications, so it would help to reach more users.
Then the last thing is that if we manage to publish on Flathub, then flatpak can deal with the update for you. Also flatpak has builtin solution to manage multiple version of the same software at the same time.

[antic604]

Because when we distribute Bitwig we make a .deb which can be installed on a distribution based on debian (so quite a lot). While Flatpak is available on virtually every Linux distribution. The second point would be to get some visibility on the Flathub, a place where one can search for applications, so it would help to reach more users.
Then the last thing is that if we manage to publish on Flathub, then flatpak can deal with the update for you. Also flatpak has builtin solution to manage multiple version of the same software at the same time.

Thanks!

[Renich]

Hi Renich,
This is very interesting!

Thanks! ;D

[Renich]

What's the downside so far of using the flatpak vs the deb?
Because it does isolate the application right? Can you access all your files, sounds and projects from your home directory?

Well, for now, it doesn't isolate everything. For example, /dev is mostly available. Also, all your home files are available.

I am planning on improving the flatpak so you can fully remove it if you do so; including the downloaded files and library.

The idea is that one can fully uninstall if one wants to.

The other advantage is that I provide a private jack2 and it starts it automatically. You can configure it with a text file on ~/.Bitwig to tell it the dev, samplerate, bitdepth and buffers so it works fine.

[abique]

The jack part is dodgy I think.
Jack has to be one server with one protocol and most users will need qjackctl to configure it. I think it really has to use the jack coming from the system. This ~/.Bitwig file that you introduce is one more configuration file, that is more or less documented, I don't think it is a good idea.

Regarding wiping the installation, make sure you don't wipe user's project and libraries (preset, ...).

Edit: also for jack to have a purpose, you'd need a second client connecting to it, otherwise maybe just use plain ALSA. That's why I think that jack should not come from the bitwig flatpak.

[Renich]

The jack part is dodgy I think.
Jack has to be one server with one protocol and most users will need qjackctl to configure it. I think it really has to use the jack coming from the system. This ~/.Bitwig file that you introduce is one more configuration file, that is more or less documented, I don't think it is a good idea.

Regarding wiping the installation, make sure you don't wipe user's project and libraries (preset, ...).

Edit: also for jack to have a purpose, you'd need a second client connecting to it, otherwise maybe just use plain ALSA. That's why I think that jack should not come from the bitwig flatpak.

I understand your concerns with the jack issue. The thing is that jack doens't work for other distros. At least, it fails in Fedora and CentOS, which is where I tried. Not only that, sometimes, Bitwig Studio uses components that aren't present in other distros.

I bundled jack because, otherwise, it wouldn't work on Fedora. I think OpenSuse had this problem as well.

Also, I see it as a feature, because, Bitwig Studio, if it adopts this, can provide an interface to configure jack (like it should, IMHO) so the user doens't need to mingle with qjackctl or some other tool for this. Also, if I know the exact requirements, I could compile jack tailored for Bitwig. I mean, they bundle their own java version, why not jack as well?

About managing user files, user files and library shouldn't be stored in ~/.BitwigStudio/. They should be separate so, say, a user want's to delete Bitwig Studio completely, he/she can do it just by removing the flatpak. This way, you don't have to go looking for hidden files afterwards.

When this is done, I will add a warning about uninstallation... somehow.

If Bitwig could provide some internals, the flatpak would be awesome. it offers a way to install, exactly, what they need and the versions they use for all linux distributions that support flatpak (many of the main distros do).

[Renich]

Sorry, I'm really stupid when it comes to Linux (and probably other topics, too...) so can anyone explain in simple words why this is awesome?

Let me try to re-explain this from my perspective.

Apps in linux are hard to package. You would have to support many formats and attend to many packaging guidelines. Not even Debian and Ubuntu are the same; they differ in many ways. So, as I see it, it's very problematic to maintain packages for many distros.

Bitwig packages Bitwig Studio for Ubuntu. They aim on using the Ubuntu libraries (which are different from other distros). They depend on this to be able to provide a great user experience.

The problem is not all of us use Ubuntu. In fact, many of us use something else.

Flatpak provides a way for Bitwig to be able to bundle, exactly, all the libraries and tools they require; bundled in a cross-distro friendly format that anyone can install. For example: https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.au ... m.Audacity

This would broaden their potential public. Also, it makes debugging easier for them because all users would have the same environment. They wouldn't need to guess which library version you're using for, say, libbz2, which is one of the components required by it.

It would make distribution much easier, it would standardize the environment and the components used.

My version is kind of a hack. I don't know the exact requirements of Bitwig Studio. I just went and, by trial and error, devised what was needed in order to be able to use Bitwig Studio.

It works great for me. No issues at all. This is great since I don't want to use Ubuntu to be able to use Bitwig Studio. Also, I hope, it's good for all other distro users that want to try it out.

[lunardigs]

Fedora has pretty strong support for Flatpak at this point. It's installed by default since 28 I think and now with 29:

"GNOME Software now supports automatic updates for Flatpak in Fedora 29. Flatpak is a next-generation technology for building and distributing desktop applications on Linux. It makes it easy for software makers to support multiple distributions with one format."
- https://fedoramagazine.org/whats-new-fe ... rkstation/

[Renich]

@abique: you write as if you were a Bitwig developer. Are you?

Would you answer a few questions so I can make the flatpak better?

I totally take into account what you suggest, btw.

[Renich]

I've just updated the Bitwig Studio Flatpak so it includes ffmpeg (for importing mp3's, ogg's and whatnot). It works fine on that regard now.

https://gitlab.com/renich/bitwigstudio- ... v.2.5-beta

This flatpak isn't official and I am not authorized to redistribute it.

[abique]

Yes I am a developer.
I've sent a bunch of questions to the flatpak mailing list to figure how the vst/vst3/daw world would work with flatpak, but I'm waiting for the admin to approve the email...

[Renich]

It's easier to get into IRC. What are you asking about VST?

First of all, you can grant access to anyting. For example, you can grant read-only access to the VST folder in the /usr directory. Also, you can grant read and write access to any directory within home. You can even Grant read-write access to all of home, which is not optimal.

I recommend reading http://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/first-build.html