link icon
Ask The Community

Teamviewer Flatpack

Hi wanted to know if you would consider releasing teamviewer as a Flatpak on, flatpack it's use by dozen of Linux distro as the main source of user software 


  • +1

    Snap package would be very usefull.

  • yes, please provide a snap or flatpak.

    It will provide an easy way to install on not officially supported distributions and avoid dependency issues (freetype2).

  • J_Reis
    J_Reis Posts: 14

    This is a great idea! A distribution & dependency agnostic package would be an excellent addition for TV.

    My preference would be for an AppImage. Lacking that flatpak. Last I looked (a while ago, admittedly) you still had to sign a Contributor License Agreement with Canonical to make a snap package and the whole thing was locked into their snappy store. Canonical has complete control over the whole ecosystem and I don't think we users should encourage that kind of thing in the Linux universe. I use AppImage for a handful of applications as a way to get the occassional bleeding edge stuff I want running on my Debian Stable machine. They are dead easy to use and don't require a complicated package manager or interacting with anyone's "store".

  • mikalo
    mikalo Posts: 11 ✭✭

    You can host your own snap store if you want:
    statement Canonical

    Seems Appimages are not that secure. For instance my distribution doesn't officially support appimages because they don't want to include a "insecure deprecated library in the root install by default" which is needed to get those universal apps work.

  • J_Reis
    J_Reis Posts: 14

    I don't think things are as simple as that. I hesitate to continue hijacking this thread, but I also think the reality should be more clearly articulated than "appimages are not that secure". So, keeping in mind that the gist of this thread is that it would be great if TeamViewer provided a distro agnostic, atomic package of somekind & we all hope they will consider doing so. Lets see what I can manage in the 20 minutes I'm on lunch … without getting too many crumbs in my keyboard!



    I should preface this by admitting that I haven't researched the current state of security on various distros using snaps in over a year. At that time snaps for Fedora & Debian (maybe everything not Ubuntu) were compiled by default with confinement disabled, negating any conceivable security benefit. Perhaps this has changed, perhaps many things have changed. If you have some more current info I should look at let me know!

    As far as I'm aware the only thing that could be considered "more secure" about snap vs appimage is sandboxing. The issue of deprecated libraries not being auto-magically updated is something they both suffer from. We rely on the producer of the package to be cogniscent of security issues & push updates. While I don't read that as hugely different from the plethora of unpatched/unfixed packages already present in every repo—I'll grant that someone else might read it differently. It is certainly true that sandboxing is a feature of flatpak and snaps over appimage. I should insert something here about there being no meaningful way to isolate any app running on X anyway, so sandboxing is meaningless for TV until wayland support is up (& we're a long way from a significant portion of users running wayland … though any individual who is on wayland could see benefit).

    For myself AppImage is dead simple. Snapsd is more of a hassle—having to deal with an additional package manager. FOSS Projects that aren't open to contributions without corporate CLAs bother me and that isn't helped at all by being able to host your own store.

    Additionally, "stores" that try to centralize distibution under the auspices of a single entity bother me and I know from experience with Fdroid that being able to "have your own separate store" is not an equitable solution.

    Laslty, I'll admit that I got burned with Unity, then Mir and particularly by the (now completely unsupported) Ubuntu phone that's sitting in my desk drawer … so I'm probably a bit jaded when it comes to adopting anything from Canonical. I don't doubt that may make me biased against snaps.


    Obviously the TV team would need to consider all angles and choose which headaches they're most interested in dealing with.

  • Would be nice to have it on as well

  • Need flatpak for distro's like ClearLinux.

    @ciforu wrote:


    It would be great to see packages for:

    - snap

    - flatpak

    - appImage

    - nix


    Some of them are available but they are not officialy supported.

    This is a must for Linux. We can not install/start Teamviewer because of dependency problems.


    Thank you


  • Massive +1 for Snap/Flatpak support. It would solve so many of my problems right now ^_^

  • karam_80
    karam_80 Posts: 1

    AppImage is the best I think.

    You don't require root password of OS to use teamviewer.

    BY the way, the standalone stable version Teamviewer does not work on Ubuntu and Fedora (latest stable versions). That is another big issue.

  • irdb
    irdb Posts: 1 Newbie

    Been using Teamviewer for close to 10 years - It's a fantastic app. However when switching constantly between different Linux distros, the installation is a bit tricky. As the Flatpak solution matures, adding a Flatpak installation option for Teamviewer looks better and better every day. Please consider adding it!