Two entries for Thunderbird, what are the differences and which one to install?

In Software I have 2 entries for “Thunderbird”

The first one is version 78.7.0. The source is “fedoraproject.org”, and the download size is 97.7 MB.

The second one is version 78.10.1, the source is “registry.fedoraproject.org”, installed size is 261.5 MB and download size is 2.1 GB (!!!)

Why I have two entries, what are the differences and which one I should install?

5 Likes

The 97.7MB one is the RPM version of Thunderbird.

While the second one is the flatpak version.

If you have install flatpak apps to your systems, a lot of the runtime environment will be shared - so that final download will be way less then the estimates given as 2.1GB.

There are pros and cons to choose between the two. Personally, I will use the RPM version unless there is a reason not to: like version, easy of upgrade, bundled libraries, etc.

7 Likes

The RPM version should also be at 78.10.1 now:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/thunderbird

(Flatpaks in the Fedora registry are built from the RPM package, but Flatpaks at FlatHub are not)

3 Likes

I just checked with Software at my F34 workstation:
RPM version: 78.7
flatpak version: 78.10.1

With dnf info thunderbird: 78.10.1

Why Software is showing an old version of thunderbird?

2 Likes

The usual—it’s metadata may not have been synced recently· Hit the “refresh” button in the top left corner and see if that helps.

Didn’t help. Let me install all updates Software suggested and see.

Update:
after update and reboot, still got old version in Software.

2 Likes

Not a clue then—pkcon install thunderbird did give me the latest version, so packagekit clearly sees it. I’m no longer confident of how gnome-software gets its metadata etc. :confused:

1 Like

The flatpak version shows "registry.fedoraproject.org” instead of “flathub.org” because Fedora it’s maintaining its own flatpak repositories?

1 Like

Yes. It is.

1 Like

Uhm, does it make sense for Fedora to maintain both a RPM and a flatpak version?

It does.

You can check about Silverblue . Which using flatpak apps are highly recommended.

1 Like

Somebody needs to get Thunderbird caught up to the current 78.11.0 version.

I’m a bit unsure which is the preferable solution, since in my opinion, email is the most vulnerable component of an internet facing computer so I would say that it’s important to not share any environment with the email client.
Can we discuss that further? It’s not absolute clear to me.

It was released on June 1, which is 3 working days ago. let’s give the maintainers time to push updates—remember that they need to build from source and run lots of checks before they push updates to users. :slight_smile:

PS: This is worth reading: Updates policy :: Fedora Docs

Version 78.10.2, first offered to channel users on May 17, 2021

My Fedora TB is 78.10.1.

Package maintainers follow upstream development closely and decide what releases are to be pushed to users etc. So I’d just trust them here. It really isn’t necessary that every new release be pushed to users. Sometimes maintainers skip a release if they know another one is on the horizon etc.

If you want to know more about this particular package, best to file a bug so that you can communicate with the maintainers directly (if one is not already filed):

Thunderbird bugs on Bugzilla

More information here:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/thunderbird

There is another point to think about, when choosing Flatpak or RPM.
For example “Evolution”:
The RPM-Version integrates in your Environment, so that for example, under Gnome the Calendar in the Topbar shows your Entries from your Calendar.
The Flatpak-Version don’t, because it is kind of sandboxed.

Had this “issue” some times with different apps, where the Flatpak-Version couldn’t see the pathes I wanted to see. Surely, there is a way to configure, but I where lazy and installed the rpm-version.
Don’t know, if there is a point in Thunderbird, where this becomes interesting.

Not even for security reasons?

Security Vulnerabilities fixed in Thunderbird 78.10.2

Thanks for the links.

1 Like

Depends on the severity of the issues I guess. Best to discuss it with the maintainers—I don’t use/maintain this particular package so I’m speaking in general terms here.