Hello,
We initially chose Flathub because, at the time we decided to provide a Flatpak package, it seemed like the simplest and most established way to distribute it.
Over time, maintaining the Flathub package became increasingly difficult. Some new RDM features required Flatpak-specific implementations or workarounds that were not necessary for our other Linux packages. We also encountered a number of issues that were specific to the Flatpak version because of the restrictions we had to respect.
The main limitation for us was Flathub's sandboxing model. Applications are expected to request the narrowest permissions possible, which can conflict with RDM's purpose. RDM may need access to SSH configuration, certificates, smart cards, local sockets, devices, network resources, user files, system services and other applications installed on the host machine..
Some of these limitations were already present when we originally chose Flathub, but given RDM's functionality at the time, they were not significant enough to be a concern. As RDM evolved and gained more integrations and capabilities, those limitations became increasingly problematic.
More recently, another important factor was our decision to maintain two release branches: the current release and an Extended Maintenance Release. Flathub's distribution model does not fit well with the way we want to maintain and publish those two versions.
Moving to our own Flatpak repository gives us more control over the package, permissions, release channels, and deployment process.
Regarding the deployment issue and the incorrect URL in our documentation, those were issues on our side during the transition to the new repository. We’re sorry for the inconvenience this caused. The required fixes have now been applied, including the correction to the documentation.
Best regards,
