Linux build without packaging

[kyrios123]

Currently there is no option to build etcher from source for linux without making a rpm, deb or appimage package.

I understand that you can't and you don't want to support all possible packaging formats, that's fair but I think you should at least offer an easy way to build etcher for linux without packaging the application into a specific format, to allow people to simply build it from source (and package it for the distributions that aren't .deb or .rpm based (like ArchLinux, Gentoo or Solus for example) or in other universal package formats like Flatpak or Snap).

If you could allow this, it would make life of 3rd party packagers a little easier.

[probonopd]

Why not just use the AppImage? it is upstream-supported, after all.

[kyrios123]

Because :

• It is currently available in our repository and it works fine, so there is no reason for removing it (and it would annoy users who have have it installed from there).
• Discoverability is a thing : many users only use the software center to find applications (+ many people don't even pay attention from where they get 3rd party software, they could download some malicious version of an appImage package)
• Many users don't even know what appImages are and where to find them
• appImage should be made executable, which is already an issue for some beginners. Since they can use different file managers, the easiest way to explain them how to proceed to make a file executable is from a terminal and this is still something intimidating for some users.
• appImage files are bigger since they contain all the dependencies. For some people with slow/limited internet connection it may be annoying
• appImage don't have auto-update features, if a vulnerability should be discovered, most people would keep on using an out-dated already installed version of the software.

EDIT: Typo's & formulations, not a good idea to type a text from a mobile phone.

TL;DR : AppImages are are good 2nd choice alternative, but they have drawbacks and native packages are a better option for everyone IMO: Easier to find, install applications for the users and insure they get updates when available, makes the distributions more user friendly, better for the application owners because it gives more visibility to their application (in the sense it's easy to find & install for everyone), and packagers can reduce a little their workload as they do a small part of the work. They also do some extra testing and they can filter user reports in case of issue and notify upstream with (I hope) better feedback & follow up that a lambda end-user (and from time to time they can send a patch).

[probonopd]

Thanks for the clarification @kyrios123