So I tested the other day wlrobs with the screencopy backend in a Flatpak and it worked pretty great.
Flatpak-builder only supports Git for VCS, and the auto-generated archives from commits
https://hg.sr.ht/~scoopta/wlrobs/archive/<commit-sha>.tar.gz are not reproducible (different hash for each download).
I don't know what the OBS Flatpak app maintainer thinks of wlrobs and if he would accept a PR adding it, but the minimum requirement is most likely a tarball release or a Git mirror source.
As a proof-of-concept, I posted some test builds.
I don't really have a place to host a tarball outside of sr.ht and I also don't really want to maintain an official git mirror or a tarball for that matter. It's not uncommon for package maintainers to maintain this kind of stuff. For example the debian package maintainer for wofi maintains a git repo for wofi for the purpose of packaging: https://salsa.debian.org/swaywm-team/wofi As far as the hashing issue with the tarballs is concerned this is actually a known bug but it's been worked around by other maintainers. If someone wants to maintain a git mirror by all means do but I won't.
would instead of tarball releases tagged releases be possible? That combined with the hopefully soon to come stable archives would be make life for distros packaging this much easier :-)
I can do tagged releases. Never seemed needed for this project but it's super stable and hardly goes under any changes so I can tag it.
This is still unusable,
https://hg.sr.ht/~scoopta/wlrobs/archive/v1.0.tar.gzis not cached, it gives a different hash on each download, not suitable for packaging. I'm giving up on this, XDG Portals is the way to go anyway.
@tinywrkb: You might want to complain over here, instead: https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/hg.sr.ht/33
@maribu, the VCS hosting bug is open for quite a while now, no one is assigned to it and it looks like this is an unmaintained platform. I see no reason to report there. Posting here that the hosting platform is broken is very much relevant to get feedback from wlrobs' developer. If he still sticking to this broken platform it means he doesn't care about distribution and that's fair enough, people can have their private projects. I just won't bother package maintainers like the Flatpak one to bundle wlrobs.
~tinywrkb that's nice, see wofi...where I have a package for just about every distro and even FreeBSD...sorry packaging like all those maintainers do is too much work for you. It does suck that the issue hasn't been fixed, if you're that dependent on it you could go fix it seeing as sourcehut is FOSS...or just make a git mirror for packaging purposes...like debian does...and quite possibly a bunch of other distros.
Thanks for the pointer. Alpine is already using the point release with the now stable checksum :-)