Forums » Suggestions
More modern package option(s) for Linux
Currently, the only way to install Vendetta Online on Linux is to download and run a shell script which sets everything up for you, and provides options (eg. install directory) via a terminal user interface. This works alright, however:
- It is a pretty unintuitive way to install Linux software, especially in 2026 where so many other options (Flatpak, AppImage, or even deb / rpm packages) exist. Using a shell script very much still feels like a "2004" way of installing proprietary software on Linux, while Linux packaging has evolved considerably since then
- Installing via shell script comes without a lot of quality of life features, such as automatically adding the app to the app menu of your desktop environment and setting an app icon. Leaving users to do those things manually.
Given that Vendetta Online prides itself on being "Multi-Platform and open source oriented," it would make sense for the installation process on Linux to be made more modern and intuitive.
If possible, I would recommend distributing Vendetta Online as a Flatpak on Linux. It's the most popular format, and universal, so you only need to maintain one package which works regardless of what distribution you're on (and bundles its own dependencies in runtimes if required rather than relying on system dependencies that are not guaranteed to exist). You could distribute the game via FlatHub, or if you prefer, set up your own Flatpak repository to distribute the software from (the latter of which is still much more intuitive for users to set up than a shell script). Flatpak installations also automatically add the app to the user's app menu and sets an app icon, meaning users don't have to do that manually.
An AppImage would also be a good option. It's the closest thing to a .exe file on Linux. Although it would not automatically add itself to users' app menus, it is still much more intuitive than a shell script, and the other benefits (one package that works universally, dependencies bundled with the software) still apply.
- It is a pretty unintuitive way to install Linux software, especially in 2026 where so many other options (Flatpak, AppImage, or even deb / rpm packages) exist. Using a shell script very much still feels like a "2004" way of installing proprietary software on Linux, while Linux packaging has evolved considerably since then
- Installing via shell script comes without a lot of quality of life features, such as automatically adding the app to the app menu of your desktop environment and setting an app icon. Leaving users to do those things manually.
Given that Vendetta Online prides itself on being "Multi-Platform and open source oriented," it would make sense for the installation process on Linux to be made more modern and intuitive.
If possible, I would recommend distributing Vendetta Online as a Flatpak on Linux. It's the most popular format, and universal, so you only need to maintain one package which works regardless of what distribution you're on (and bundles its own dependencies in runtimes if required rather than relying on system dependencies that are not guaranteed to exist). You could distribute the game via FlatHub, or if you prefer, set up your own Flatpak repository to distribute the software from (the latter of which is still much more intuitive for users to set up than a shell script). Flatpak installations also automatically add the app to the user's app menu and sets an app icon, meaning users don't have to do that manually.
An AppImage would also be a good option. It's the closest thing to a .exe file on Linux. Although it would not automatically add itself to users' app menus, it is still much more intuitive than a shell script, and the other benefits (one package that works universally, dependencies bundled with the software) still apply.
So, basically: We agree.
We've been watching the evolution of Flatpak for some time, and we're aware of AppImage and of course deb and so on.
Part of the reason why we haven't changed this yet is that we're in the middle of drastically changing how the game is installed, which I mentioned briefly here and at greater length in a couple of other threads. This will open up new options for how we distribute the game, but we're still trying to get these changes "out the door" as there's a lot of complexity (and a lot of opportunities for breaking the game).
It also remains to be seen how compatible we're going to be with the different installation mediums.
For example, a number of people have asked us about putting the game on Flathub (one of whom I think may be a project maintainer), and I'm totally open to that. But, our current install architecture gives us user-level access to "everything" on the system, and Flatpak-via-Flathub has a lot of limitations. Flatpak is inherently a container, and while there are parameters to open it up in some ways, not all of those are acceptable to Flathub in practice.
Flathub has also "evolved" their requirements over time, and while they've been willing to "grandfather" existing apps thus far, the idea of building out our game around a particular API, system-call or filesystem availability, and then having that be removed later.. would be a real problem for us.
Either self-hosted Flatpak or AppImage would probably work, but we would prefer to get the game as broadly compatible as we can, rather than making a choice like that "early". Spending days setting up automation around AppImage, only to replace it with Flatpak would waste a lot of dev time.
So, basically.. we are working towards this, but we have too many "piece in motion" right now:
- The new Launcher system needs to be finished and released, allowing us to ship a "minimal" installation download.
- Account creation is going to be from the game client, not the website (what we already do on mobile).
- Architecture changes to our Linux install need to complete (we're dropping 32bit, also possibly some other changes).
- Can we limit our Linux runtime to work within a Flathub-acceptable Flatpak container? Remains to be seen. Other games do, but that doesn't mean much, our title is quite complex.
Once we figure all that out, we'll likely make our final-decision for Linux install-architecture and switch to that.
For the moment, we'll limp along on our "weird shell-script that runs an executable" thing, which is literally older than a lot of newer players.
We've been watching the evolution of Flatpak for some time, and we're aware of AppImage and of course deb and so on.
Part of the reason why we haven't changed this yet is that we're in the middle of drastically changing how the game is installed, which I mentioned briefly here and at greater length in a couple of other threads. This will open up new options for how we distribute the game, but we're still trying to get these changes "out the door" as there's a lot of complexity (and a lot of opportunities for breaking the game).
It also remains to be seen how compatible we're going to be with the different installation mediums.
For example, a number of people have asked us about putting the game on Flathub (one of whom I think may be a project maintainer), and I'm totally open to that. But, our current install architecture gives us user-level access to "everything" on the system, and Flatpak-via-Flathub has a lot of limitations. Flatpak is inherently a container, and while there are parameters to open it up in some ways, not all of those are acceptable to Flathub in practice.
Flathub has also "evolved" their requirements over time, and while they've been willing to "grandfather" existing apps thus far, the idea of building out our game around a particular API, system-call or filesystem availability, and then having that be removed later.. would be a real problem for us.
Either self-hosted Flatpak or AppImage would probably work, but we would prefer to get the game as broadly compatible as we can, rather than making a choice like that "early". Spending days setting up automation around AppImage, only to replace it with Flatpak would waste a lot of dev time.
So, basically.. we are working towards this, but we have too many "piece in motion" right now:
- The new Launcher system needs to be finished and released, allowing us to ship a "minimal" installation download.
- Account creation is going to be from the game client, not the website (what we already do on mobile).
- Architecture changes to our Linux install need to complete (we're dropping 32bit, also possibly some other changes).
- Can we limit our Linux runtime to work within a Flathub-acceptable Flatpak container? Remains to be seen. Other games do, but that doesn't mean much, our title is quite complex.
Once we figure all that out, we'll likely make our final-decision for Linux install-architecture and switch to that.
For the moment, we'll limp along on our "weird shell-script that runs an executable" thing, which is literally older than a lot of newer players.
This was an interesting insight into the state of development of VO's installation process.
Definitely agree there is no point in chasing a moving target of meeting FlatHub requirements, especially while the entire installation process is still in the process of being reworked. But I'm glad to hear work is being done on modernising the install process (though it must be pretty difficult given the age of the game and how much code has already built up).
I think that even if VO never meets FlatHub's requirements, a self hosted Flatpak could still work pretty well. Hytale uses this approach, and it works remarkably well. Their installation process involves the use of a launcher which installs and runs the game, which seems to be similar to what you are working towards. Flatpak as a format continues to evolve, however, and there is no point considering it until all the other parts are in place. (There is talk of developing a "Flatpak 2" that will do things in a less "hacky" way but depend on SystemD, although Flatpak 1 will continue to receive updates alongside it for compatibility).
Definitely agree there is no point in chasing a moving target of meeting FlatHub requirements, especially while the entire installation process is still in the process of being reworked. But I'm glad to hear work is being done on modernising the install process (though it must be pretty difficult given the age of the game and how much code has already built up).
I think that even if VO never meets FlatHub's requirements, a self hosted Flatpak could still work pretty well. Hytale uses this approach, and it works remarkably well. Their installation process involves the use of a launcher which installs and runs the game, which seems to be similar to what you are working towards. Flatpak as a format continues to evolve, however, and there is no point considering it until all the other parts are in place. (There is talk of developing a "Flatpak 2" that will do things in a less "hacky" way but depend on SystemD, although Flatpak 1 will continue to receive updates alongside it for compatibility).