Flatpak - Pitivi - on VoidPup64

[peebee]

see:
viewtopic.php?p=48576#p48576

[BarryK]

4.6GB, yes, yikes!

Pitivi is written in python, and it is a matter of installing all needed python modules.

Then I have to add gstreamer to EasyOS. Prior to that, I didn't have any apps builtin that needed gstreamer, so that bumped the size.

But yeah, if you can figure out all required package dependencies, then you can get Pitivi to run, don't need a flatpack.

Debian and Ubuntu based pups probably already have Pitivi in the repo.
-- which probably installs with all the "bells and whistles" deps.

Some deps are optional, such as frei0r-plugins, which adds special effects.

[jamesbond]

4.6GB, yes, yikes!

Because when you install the "flatpaks" you're basically re-installing the entire operating system, at a specific version (the version that the app is compiled). If you happen to install 5 apps which were all compiled on different versions, you end-up installing 5 copies of the OS. If you have gobs and gobs of storage, sure, why not. Go ahead and do it. But for us who likes to use the storage for something which is really valuable (=that is, our own data, instead of yet another copy of system libraries) ... well. It's RH technology, brought to you by the same folks who brought systemd, so what do you expect.

This guy wrote about it. He has certain criticism against AppImages too, but I would say AppImages is a non-ideal solution in a non-ideal world; and compared to Flatpak (or its cousin Snap), it is a much lesser evil. I can tolerate a ~250MB OpenShot. I certainly can't tolerate a ~4.6GB PiTivi (I mean, come on, the video that I want to edit isn't even __that__ big).

[wiak]

I was curious, so just for a comparison I used pacman to install each of openshot, kdenlive, and pitivi (on separate pretty much pristine install builds of the WDL_Arch64 distro I use). The result itself doesn't mean much since of course depends what libs and so on are already installed on system, but at least for my use Pitivi is smaller install than openbox or kdenlive, but shotcut much smaller still (haven't tried using the latter). However, my family are kdenlive fans and to be honest the disk storage size difference (and its in MiB, not GiB here) doesn't make it worthwhile for me to bother using the "smallest installed size". Being from Arch Linux, these will be pretty close to most recent stable packages:

per pacman -Sy output:

Pitivi (pitivi-2021.05-3):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:    35.81 MiB
Total Installed Size:  157.89 MiB

qt5 Openshot (openshot-2.6.1-5):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:   115.60 MiB
Total Installed Size:  375.30 MiB

Kdenlive (kdenlive-21.12.1-1):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:   125.49 MiB
Total Installed Size:  489.58 MiB

Flowblade (flowblade-2.8.0.3-3):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:    62.21 MiB
Total Installed Size:  234.54 MiB

Shotcut (shotcut-22.01.30-1):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:   17.04 MiB
Total Installed Size:  77.66 MiB

Basically you can install ALL of above in this scenario in less that 1GB compared to the use of huge flatpaks (or snap) for each.

I don't have Blender installed at the moment, but family members use that a lot so, for comparison (since it does have some kind of video editor included in its code):

Blender (blender-17:3.0.1-1) is huge...:

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:   221.69 MiB
Total Installed Size:  969.40 MiB

Just for comparison image is of Shotcut since already seen Pitivi. And the video is of same old waterpump I have...

In reality, our default WDL_Arch64 install includes okular, which is a kde pdf app and qt5 I think, so involves lots of huge extra libs anyway. With these installed I expect much smaller install sizes for some of the above.

[wiak]

I made myself more curious and tried again after first installing our needed family favourite/required kde app Okular. Result was not much difference for most of the below, but... see kdenlive!!! and also how tiny shotcut install becomes! So, as you see, non flatpak type install sizes depends very much sometimes on what other apps you are installing - if, as in this example, you are using kde apps such as Okular pdf editor, which seems very large individually, fact is the follow-up kde apps often use same libs so quite an efficient install size overall.

per pacman -Sy output:

Pitivi (pitivi-2021.05-3):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:    34.59 MiB
Total Installed Size:  152.32 MiB

qt5 Openshot (openshot-2.6.1-5):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:   106.17 MiB
Total Installed Size:  332.79 MiB

Kdenlive (kdenlive-21.12.1-1):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:    31.44 MiB
Total Installed Size:  167.74 MiB

Flowblade (flowblade-2.8.0.3-3):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:    61.50 MiB
Total Installed Size:  230.45 MiB

Shotcut (shotcut-22.01.30-1):

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:    7.79 MiB
Total Installed Size:  31.09 MiB

Blender (blender-17:3.0.1-1) is huge...:

Code: Select all

Total Download Size:   221.18 MiB
Total Installed Size:  967.93 MiB

[jamesbond]

@wiak - The issue here is not the comparison between the video editors.
Different video editors obviously have different sizes depending on their features etc.

The issue that needs to be higlighted here is the effect of Flatpak packaging.
Despite its nice sounding name, it actually inflates the installed package size ridiculously.

I wasn't clear in my previous post. My comparison is meant to highlight a 250MB OpenShot AppImage (this is a compressed SFS which contains (almost) the entire dependency that it needs, and this compares favourably to your own pacman of ~106MB compressed OpenShot package without the dependency), vs 4.6GB uncompressed PiTivi delivered through Flatpak, despite the its standalone uncompressed size being only 152MB (again from your pacman figure as well). Even if one assumes that PiTivi dependencies is 10x its own size (which is ridiculous to begin with), uncompressed PiTivi is only 1.5GB - still can't complete with Flatpak's packaging size.

Flatpak is just ridiculous.