Re: Build a portable linux binary?

[Tatsuro MATSUOKA]

>>  The Flatpak solution
>>  would be great, if it didn't stop Octave packages linking to non 
> Flatpak
>>  libraries.
> 
> I read this is as: the Flatpak solution is great, unless you need to
> install one of a small number of Forge packages that depend on
> third-party system libraries, right?
> 
> I fully support the Flatpak package, and this seems like a niche
> objection to me. If it's an important problem to you, can you help? Can
> you document which packages don't install because of unavailable system
> libraries?
> 
> If I maintained a package that linked with, let's say the Speex library,
> then I would probably bundle the speex source with my package so it is
> downloaded and built inside the package instead of relying on system
> libraries.


The original author stated that at the first post

Of course, I know that we could have flatpak or snap packages, but there are 
sand boxes, and as such have issues (permission problems, gui themes, huge 
size, etc.). 

And he hopes the portable version of octave.


Do you have ideas that is independent flatpak?

Tatsuro