User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Fedora; Linux x86_64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/47.0 Build ID: 20160711192800 Steps to reproduce: In a similar fashion to what has been proposed in bug 127871 for Firefox, it would be wonderful if Mozilla could distribute Thunderbird as a flatpak, so that it can be distributed as an standalone bundle, independent from any distro. In order to help with this task, I've flatpak'ed Thunderbird 45.2.0 myself and published all the resources used in https://github.com/mariospr/thunderbird-flatpak, released with a CC0 1.0 (Public Domain Dedication) license, which you're more than welcome to use if you want as a baseline of course. Last, as a stretch goal, it would be wonderful if Thunderbird could constrain its sandbox as much as possible and improve its integration with the rest of the system, for what it will likely need some extra development effort in order to use some of the "portals" flatpak offer, such as the Documents and the OpenURI portal, for instance. But that could certainly be better suited to be tracked as a different bug, of course. Just mentioning here for rerefence  http://flatpak.org/  https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/wiki/Portals Actual results: On Linux, Thunderbird is only distributed as tarballs or distro-dependent packages such as RPM or DEB.. Expected results: It is possible to install Thunderbird on any Linux distribution using flatpak
Oh! yes, I did mean bug 1278719, sorry for the confusing typo
Severity: normal → enhancement
OS: Unspecified → Linux
I've been trying to flatpak(1) Thunderbird (52.4.0) myself, but it'd be much preferred if mozilla did it officially themselves. I've made quite a bit of progress but I'm still working out a variety of kinks (e.g. enigmail integration, lightning isn't working, etc). If you want to see the progress I've made you can look at this PR: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/161
(In reply to adrianlucrececeleste from comment #3) Thank you for landing Thunderbird in Flathub and creating a Repository. If Flathub is unable to host Thunderbird Beta, could Thunderbird Beta Flatpak be hosted on the official Thunderbird webpage. If Flathub is unable to host Thunderbird Nightly, could Thunderbird Nightly Flatpak be hosted on the official Thunderbird webpage. Unfortunately, there are still some issues with Thunderbird flatpak. Could Thunderbird core developers assist please? @jorgk Could official Thunderbird builds trigger updates to the flatpak version too please? Is this something Thunderbird Release engineering needs to be aware of to enable continuous integration? Thank you  https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.mozilla.Thunderbird  https://github.com/flathub/org.mozilla.Thunderbird  https://flathub.org/  https://www.thunderbird.net/channel/  https://github.com/flathub/org.mozilla.Thunderbird/issues/23  https://www.thunderbird.net/thunderbird/beta/all/  http://ftp.stage.mozaws.net/pub/thunderbird/nightly/latest-comm-central/  https://github.com/flathub/org.mozilla.Thunderbird/issues/24  https://github.com/flathub/org.mozilla.Thunderbird/issues/  https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=comm-central
At the moment Flathub doesn't do developmental snapshots. I would have no issue with Thunderbird Beta/Nightly flatpak(s) being hosted on Thunderbird's website though.
(In reply to Óvári from comment #4, and myself from comment #5) If you would need help in how to get Beta/Nightly flatpaks setup, I could try to help. I feel like there wouldn't be much work involved.
(In reply to Óvári from comment #4) > @jorgk Could official Thunderbird builds trigger updates to the flatpak > version too please? Is this something Thunderbird Release engineering needs > to be aware of to enable continuous integration? Yes.
For the Thunderbird team this has a hard dependency on Firefox completing their flatpak work. When there is a builder that generates the flatpaks for Firefox, we can have our release engineering set up jobs that work just the same. I don't think it makes sense to invest time in doing this beforehand, as it could possibly mean a substantial amount of work that the Firefox team would be doing anyway. I'd much rather re-use their work at this point.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.