Allow some apps to be prevented from being uninstalled

[allanday]

Most operating systems have some key applications that they don't allow users to uninstall. These can include basic utilities like a terminal or a system monitor, or essential applications like a web browser. It seems important for Flatpak to allow this to happen.

[hughsie]

Isn't this desktop policy, i.e. something that gnome-software should enforce? I think it's fine the admin can remove compulsory apps on the command line, it's not something you do accidentally...

[allanday]

Isn't this desktop policy, i.e. something that gnome-software should enforce? I think it's fine the admin can remove compulsory apps on the command line, it's not something you do accidentally...

Right now distros enforce this for both the command line and for Software. You can't practically remove Firefox from Fedora through either, for example. Whether that's desirable or not is another question of course...

There's also a practical question of whether it should be possible to remove the terminal app from the command line. ;)

[matthiasclasen]

I'm not a fan of this uninstallable apps business

[allanday]

I'm not a fan of this uninstallable apps business

You think that any app should be uninstallable? Does that include the Terminal? What about the default Web Browser? Settings? Software?

[alexlarsson]

In part that is a discussion about what things are part of the "os", versus which are apps. I think it should definatively be possible to run a gnome desktop without a terminal, so uninstalling that seems to make sense. However, uninstalling core parts of the desktop like settings and software seems wrong. For browsers, I dunno. A lot of people have strong opinions on browsers and may chose a non-default browser. Not being able to uninstall an app that you have chosen an alternative for seem a bit limiting.

That said, what we're talking about here is implementation, not necessary policy. In a system where gnome-settings could be implemented as a flatpak (rather than in some other way outside it) it would be nice if the flatpak could be configured to consider it "part of the OS".

That said, I don't think this rates very high on my priority-list, because such corner cases probably won't appear for a long time.

[allanday]

In a system where gnome-settings could be implemented as a flatpak (rather than in some other way outside it) it would be nice if the flatpak could be configured to consider it "part of the OS".

I largely agree.

That said, I don't think this rates very high on my priority-list, because such corner cases probably won't appear for a long time.

I filed this after a discussion at GUADEC, where it was speculated that GNOME would need this functionality if it was going to fully embrace Flatpak. Obviously this very much depends on which apps GNOME wants to offer as Flatpaks and which ones we consider to be essential and non-removable. Something to revisit at a later date, probably.

[matthiasclasen]

You think that any app should be uninstallable?

To me, GNOME not wanting to let users uninstall an app has the same general feeling as Fedora not wanting to let users see nonfree apps: It is constraining my freedom as a user to do what I damn well please.

By all means, inform me that removing the terminal might not be a wise decision. But if removing something breaks my system, it should not appear like an app in GNOME software.

[alexlarsson]

@matthiasclasen I think thats kinda the point though. You want to use flatpak for technical reasons, but you don't want the "thing" to appear as an app in GNOME Software. This is where you would use the "not-uninstallable" flag.

[adityashah1212]

Even I don't like the idea of not being able to uninstall an app, it basically destroys the way linux is built. A better way I would want this to be, is to have a warning flag for critical apps that is raised by the app dev while building flatpak. If flatpak notices this flag it raises a warning and then reconfirms whether the user wants to uninstall the app, if replied yes, the flatpak should do so without a care.

[matthiasclasen]

This is where you would use the "not-uninstallable" flag.

I think that would rather be a "not-an-app" flag, then ?