Well that’s pretty much my question, what’s the implementation time. If it just takes adding back flatpak in the compilation process (which afaik should be enough ? hopefully doesn’t need a whole lot of stuff to be added for it to compile for an intended target platform), this might as well be done.
While I don’t see it happening anytime soon, projects like Batocera are always at a risk of dying from one day to another. Meanwhile, decent long-term support of flatpak packages for aarch64 might become more prominent.
My point, and it might be wrong based on my assumptions (that are purely theoretical on my end) is that if it only takes adding flatpak back into the compilation cycle and nothing more, then long-term it’s better to do it as soon as possible.
My point obviosuly becomes moot if making it compile for aarch64 is harde than expected, but even then, I’d assume other OSs using buildroot have done it for aarch64 platforms and could be used as inspiration. Just throwing ideas, not saying they’re good or make sense in the long run, I’m not handling the project. I just know than when being knee deep in a project, such trivial or benign matter can be forgotten or overlooked, and sometimes it helps to just be pointed out the possibility.
Thanks for answering me in all cases :)
Slightly off topic and mostly curiosity : What does it take to make a flatpak project run on aarch64 ? Isn’t the whole point of flatpak to make apps easy to distribute across many linux distros, regardless of the target architecture (or at least, as much as possible, since sometimes some library might just outright not be available, especially on arm-based architectures) ?