[Users] Consider packaging claws-mail as flatpak distributable?

[mi]

> Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:38:28 +0200 Danny van Heumen wrote:
(...)
> > Actually, come to think about it. The Flatpak solution might be more
> > attractive in the long run as it covers a larger number of distros.
> > (That is, assuming that flatpak and similar packaging formats won't
> > fail miserably.)  

Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:57:05 +0200 Michal Suchánek replied:
 
(...) 

> With Flatpak if you install 20 GTK applications you get 20 copies of
> GTK (and its image loades, font libraries, and whatnot). Every time an
> issue is found packager of each and every Flatpak application needs to
> apply a fix to the bundled libraries the application depends on.
> 
> This does not scale very well. It takes up a lot of disk space, too.

Most people think disk space is not an issue today, for PCs and laptops. However, we also have to consider backups, and the update speed, which is quite faster with the legacy shared libraries distro thing. 
It sums up.

I can run a desktop linux with only 10G disk space. A 'flatpak' Windows 10 starts with waht ? 20 G ? and rapidly eating up the disk. Updates are horribly slow (in total) and each and every package has to care themselves for it, bothring me non-stop with endless request-popups. 
It's highly inefficient.

There are always cons, and pros. A 'central security management' like most big distros have, is a 'pro' too, when issues at least are quickly forwarded to the responsible developers, and their response is awaited and monitored. Worst case, they got excluded from the distro. Now compare that to Adobe, for example. 

I consider the distribution community itself a big pro, since it offers so much help for users and new developers, and any klind of community is a pro in itself, to me. It's a social thing and one strenght of linux.

my 5 ct ...