-21

Why Veracrypt not in flatpak? (programming.dev)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by cplusplus@programming.dev to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TechieDamien@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

Those are two completely different things. It is like saying "why hammers not apples?" There is no logical answer, they are just two completely different things.

[-] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 2 months ago

I was confused, but I think they might be asking why Veracrypt isn’t available as a flatpak

[-] lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

I've interpreted like that as well. 🤔

[-] cplusplus@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

this, sorry for the title

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 7 points 2 months ago

I would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn't blend well with the flatpak sandbox

[-] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 7 points 2 months ago

You can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

I haven't used veracrypt to encrypt linux system partitions. Does it do all the decryption in user space somehow?

[-] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 2 months ago

and then what's the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?