Flatpak Doesn't Work in Ubuntu 25.10, But a Fix is Coming (phoronix.com)
- Reference: 0179767764
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/13/067256/flatpak-doesnt-work-in-ubuntu-2510-but-a-fix-is-coming
- Source link: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-25.10-Broken-Flatpaks
> While Flatpak itself can be installed using apt , trying to install Flatpaks with Flatpak from the command-line throws a "could not unmount revokefs-fuse filesystem" error, followed by "Child process exited with code 1". For those who've installed the Ubuntu 'Questing Quokka' and wanted to kit it out with their favourite software from Flathub, it's a frustrating road bump.
>
> [2]AppArmor , the tool that enforces Ubuntu's security policies for apps, is causing the issue. According to the [3]bug report on Launchpad , the AppArmor profile for fusermount3 lacks the privileges it needs to work properly in Ubuntu 25.10. Fusermount3 is a tool Flatpak relies on to mount and unmount filesystems... This is a bug and it is being worked on. Although there's no timeframe for a fix, it is marked as critical, so will be prioritised.
The bug was reported in early September, but not fixed in time for this week's Ubuntu 25.10 release, [4]reports Phoronix :
> Only [Friday] an updated AppArmor was pushed to the "questing-proposed" archive for testing. Since then... a number of users have reported that the updated AppArmor from the proposed archive will fix the Flatpak issues being observed. From all the reports so far it looks like that proposed update is in good shape for restoring Flatpak support on Ubuntu 25.10. The Ubuntu team is considering pushing out this update sooner than the typical seven day testing period given the severity of the issue.
[5]More details from WebProNews :
> Industry insiders point out that AppArmor, Ubuntu's mandatory access control system, was tightened in this release to enhance security... This isn't the first time AppArmor has caused friction; similar issues plagued Telegram Flatpak apps in Ubuntu 24.04 LTS earlier this year, as noted in coverage [6]from OMG Ubuntu .
[1] https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/10/flatpak-broken-ubuntu-25-10-apparmor-bug
[2] https://apparmor.net/
[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flatpak/+bug/2122161
[4] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-25.10-Broken-Flatpaks
[5] https://www.webpronews.com/ubuntu-25-10-launch-hit-by-flatpak-glitch-from-apparmor-security/
[6] https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2024/07/ubuntu-apparmor-fix-for-telegram-flatpak
What is this RevokeFS filesystem ? (Score:1)
What is this RevokeFS filesystem ? Anyone has any idea, because I can't find anything on the net (except this exact error)
SquashFS, OverlayFS, ResilientFS i can understand but RevokeFS ? Maybe some new/re-branded journalling thing?
Wtf? (Score:2)
"the Rust replacements for standard gnu utilities were busted."
I had to google this - I didn't realise people were wasting time and effort in a pointless re-write of utilities that have probably been debugged better than any other code out there!
Do these Rust zealots not understand that memory leaks are only one of many potential bugs and in a fire and forget utility that may only run for literally microseconds they're borderline irrelevant compared to logic errors? And if you rewrite complicated code in an
AppArmor or SELinux (Score:2)
are making Linux into Windows, where arbitrary security rules blocks functionality. And that is probably the motivation by adding those restrictions: Corporate IT departments are used to them from Windows, therefore we need to add them in Linux, too. What about just making the standard Linux system secure, while workable, instead of adding configuration rules on top?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for pointing out the foibles of windows, but I'm afraid security and firewall rules are standard in the corporate world and have been for decades. If you think any of the corporate *nixes like Solaris of HP-UX didn't have any of this then you really need to get yourself up to speed as to how IT works in a business.
At least it's not SELinux. (Score:2)
Just wait until EditorDavid hears about SELinux and all the issues it has and causes everyday.
Re: (Score:2)
SELinux doesn’t have issues, admins who can’t be bothered to learn how to use it have problems.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems like a cop-out argument.
I could just as well ask why this thing is designed so stupidly as to have a learning curve at all.
Re: At least it's not SELinux. (Score:2)
Because it replaced things like cron that were easy and made things complex. Cron was a one liner and I could mostly remember what the fields did. To do the same thing in systemd you need a service file and a timer file and I don't think I'll ever remember the format of those without using a reference.
Re: At least it's not SELinux. (Score:2)
Sorry I thought we were talking about systemd. SELinux isn't quite as bad because it fills a space that wasnt done before. Though we do have an application that spits out SELinux errors like crazy and the vendor can't tell us how to stop them.