-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add RPM and AppImage download options #85
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
1a72667
to
7230cf4
Compare
Thanks @rosahaj! Good move. That said, I haven't tested either of these in a while, but I have some notes from a way back that said that there were minor issues with these packages. Have you tested them yourself? I'm not actually sure what the original issue was, something related to icons and menu installation. If you've tried them and they seem to be working correctly otherwise though then I'm happy to add them to the list. |
os: 'linux', | ||
slug: 'linux-rpm', | ||
href: '/download/linux-rpm', | ||
text: 'Linux Fedora Package', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Technically an RPM isn't just for Fedora (really, if anything it's for Red Hat originally) so "Linux RPM Package" might be better & clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had the same thought, but ultimately decided to follow the naming convention used for the other packages. If the RPM package is labelled "Linux RPM package", then I believe the DEB package should be labelled "Linux DEB package" as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure! Fbm.
The other question on here is still pending btw - have you tested these builds? If so where and how? Do let me know if there are any issues there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're right, there are issues with the icons when using the RPM package. I'm aware of the other question and I intend to do more comprehensive testing of both builds. I haven't come around to it yet, but I'll post an update here once I do.
@pimterry I finally got around to testing the RPM and AppImage builds. HttpToolkit version: v1.19.1 IconsMy initial icon issues were caused by a custom The RPM build has no icon issues whatsoever as far as I can tell. The icon is correctly displayed in the Gnome Applications Menu, Gnome Dock, Gnome window list and in the Gnome System Monitor. The icons for the AppImage build are not displayed in any context. FWIW, I've tested the latest AppImage releases of Pulsar, Joplin, Ente Auth, Motrix and upscayl (all of which use electron-builder to build AppImages), and none of them manage to correctly display an icon in the Gnome Deck or Gnome window list. The issue appears to be with electron-builder itself (see electron-userland/electron-builder#4617). FunctionalityI tested most free features of HttpToolkit with both RPM and AppImage builds and couldn't find any issues. Other issuesWhen upgrading, uninstalling or reinstalling RPM builds, I ran into the same issue discussed here: IsmaelMartinez/teams-for-linux#958 This needs some further investigating, but is likely related to this issue with electron-builder: electron-userland/electron-builder#7326 |
69db091
to
7230cf4
Compare
…than distribution
Once httptoolkit/httptoolkit-desktop#76 is merged, the RPM package should work as expected. As for the AppImage: It doesn't look like it's possible to get the icons to work properly due to issues with electron-builder and AppImage respectively - at least I can't find any other project which managed to get them to work. My suggestion would be to nonetheless add it to the download options on the website since it's fully functional (apart from the icon issues) and it provides a convenient, easy-to-use option for people who are running a Linux distribution which doesn't use DEB, RPM or AUR packages. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work @rosahaj 👍.
I'm going to hold this for a little bit, just until your new RPM changes are released, but then I'll merge it to start shipping that.
I noticed that RPM and AppImage builds were absent from the website despite having been continuously available since v1.1.0. This PR adds download options for both.