I'm especially concerned about it being somehow broken, unwieldy, insecure or privacy-invasive.
Case in point; at times I have to rely on a Chromium-based browser if a website decides to misbehave on a Firefox-based browser. Out of the available options I gravitate towards Brave as it seems like the least bad out of the bunch.
Unfortunately, their RPM-package leaves a lot to be desired and has multiple times just been awful to deal with. So much so that I have been using another Chromium-based browser instead that's available directly from my distro's repos. But…, I would still switch to Brave in an instant if Brave was found in my distro's repos. A quick search on repology.org reveals that an up-to-date Brave is packaged in the AUR (unsurprisingly), Manjaro and Homebrew. I don't feel like changing distros for the sake of a single program, but adding Homebrew to my arsenal of universal package managers doesn't sound that bad. But, not all universal package managers are created equal, therefore I was interested to know how Homebrew fares compared to the others and if it handles the packaging of the browser without blemishing the capabilities of the browser's sandbox.
P.S. I expect people to recommend me Distrobox instead. Don't worry, I have been a staunch user of Distrobox for quite a while now. I have also run Brave through an Arch-distrobox in the past. But due to some concerns I've had, I chose to discontinue this. Btw, its Flatpak package ain't bad either. But unfortunately it's not official, so I choose to not make use of it for that reason.
Unfortunately, you didn't -to my knowledge- support nor retract your claim on Chromium using flatpak sub-sandboxes. Therefore, I find it hard to continue taking your words at face value.
I have enjoyed these interactions, so don't get me wrong; but if I (possibly) catch you on spreading misinformation (even if unintentional), then I find it hard to keep engagement up as there's no guarantee that anything else coming from you is actually correct.
I would love to be corrected on this though, so please feel free if I have misunderstood you or anything else that would revive this conversation. If not, then I would still like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this friendly interaction we've had. Take care!
I linked the source but sure, I'll link it more for you.
The portal code is here: https://github.com/refi64/zypak/blob/ded79a2f8a509adc21834b95a9892073d4a91fdc/src/dbus/flatpak_portal_proxy.h
The actual code that Chromium calls is here: https://github.com/refi64/zypak/blob/ded79a2f8a509adc21834b95a9892073d4a91fdc/src/helper/spawn_latest.cc#L21
This calls the
org.freedesktop.portal.Flatpakservice.This service is here: https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/tree/main/portal
The
Spawnmethod creates a new sandbox completely isolated from the originating sandbox.I am aware, but the same source seemingly contradicted your point[1] regarding sub-sandboxing.
Wow, thanks a lot for the work you've put into this! It might take some time for me to go through this, but I'll definitely take a look and perhaps I'll return on this at a later point. Perhaps with this I will finally be able to install my Chromium-based browsers as a flatpak and don't feel bad about it.
Once again, your engagement has been much appreciated! So please feel free to let me know if I can buy you a coffee or something 😊! Unfortunately, statements like "Thank you so much!" don't quite capture the sheer magnitude of gratitude I feel towards you right now. For whatever it's worth; I salute you, good human.
The comment on there is odd, I’m not even sure what that issue is referring to. Not much exciting happened in that release for new features but there were subsandbox security fixes https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/compare/1.10.8...1.12.0
Thanks for taking the time to take a proper look at the link!
deleted by creator