AppImage vs FlatPak vs Guix for audio

[Basslint]

Hello,

I am a traditional RPM packager and for the sake of building a better GNU/Linux audio ecosystem for everyone, I'd like to explore cross-distro packaging.

I have zero experience with AppImage and Flatpak, I have dabbled with Guix.

From what I have understood, Guix is the best for packagers in terms of tooling (since it uses a real programming language for builds, Scheme, in a declarative way), but also the hardest to use for final users, who can't simply download an installer, run it and be done with it. Another thing I don't like about Guix is that they put all packages from the same category in the same build file (example). For these reasons, even though I would prefer to cheer for a GNU project which uses a Lisp, I am afraid it isn't an option for attracting people who right now are using Mac or Windows on GNU/Linux, but it's great for FLOSS hackers!

I do not know much about AppImage and FlatPak. I rarely use them because I don't trust the most popular Flatpak repo (FlatHub), which has a lot of proprietary stuff in it, and I am not sure an equivalent to FlatHub exists for AppImage (I only found this). In any case, I'd prefer if FLOSS-only repos existed for either or both, possibly run by a trusted nonprofit organisation.

Can you tell me more about AppImage, FlatPak or Guix? Are there any audio-specific issues concerning these systems?

Thank you

PS: I am leaving out snap because I don't like the fact that their server code is nonfree, so I would not consider it cross-distro

[bluzee]

Appimages are pretty simple for the end user. I have a couple appimage programs on my machine. The ones I have are not exceeding greedy on disk space. My Income Tax software which normally required to be run under wine has been released as a linux native appimage this year. Download is about 100Mb verses 30Mb for the win exe but the actual disc space used after install is about 10Mb less for the appimage. Nice!

I've never installed a FlatPak but I like that the software manager lets you know how much disc space the app will actually use once installed. If a simple app is going to take up a few Gb on the drive because it has to reinstall half the OS I'd rather compile from source.

Snap has been removed from my machine. Installed a couple simple little apps and it took up a quarter of my root partition.

This is the first I've heard of Guix.

Not sure why developers don't just seek out a few volunteers to make packages. When I build from source I'll often build a package any way. Generally not that difficult and if the source comes from a git repo once it's set up the first time new versions are simple to build.

[sunrat]

I don't know Guix either, but Flatpak and Snap both require runtime packages which can take a lot of extra space. Snap is a ridiculous hog. Neither will ever make it to my system, I consider them akin to viruses.
Appimage is different in that each one comes as an independent self-contained package. They obviously will be larger than a package from your repo. For example Rui supplies Appimages for Qtractor and some other applications but I recall him posting that they are best treated as demo software and one should enable his repo if you decide to use them regularly so you get timely upgrades. Appimages need to be upgraded manually AFAIK which means downloading the whole new package and replacing the old one.
I have exactly one Appimage - a Firefox password exporter which weighs a hefty 55.6MB, only app of its kind I've seen anywhere. As an example of the size difference, I downloaded an appimage bulk rename utility at over 30MB, and subsequently found the same application in the repo at ~5MB.
So my take is stick to repo applications for better size, updates, and integration with your system. Use an appimage if you want to demo something, or absolutely need an app that isn't in the repo (you probably don't).