Pretty self-explanatory. I’ll give an example of a problem this causes:
I’m using a flatpak wrapper for WebStorm by JetBrains. The latest update causes it to insta-crash, and I’d like to report it to the maintainer of the flatpak. However, all support-related links direct me towards JetBrains’ site, despite the flatpak being explicitly unofficial (“NOTE: This wrapper is not verified by, affiliated with, or supported by JetBrains s.r.o.”). A quick google search to see if anyone else was having the same problem led me to a bug report for Rider, another JetBrains IDE, in which they’re forced to field an issue with a modified version (the flatpak) of their product.
Thus, this problem is twofold: I can’t report the issue I’m currently having to those who can fix it, and developers of the original version of the product are forced to deal with complaints regarding something they have no control over.
If there’s something I’m missing here, please let me know.
Regarding the underlying problem, I don’t think disallowing official site linking is the best idea. Maybe if someone has a concrete suggestion to improve the site UX it could alleviate some of the issue.
Part of it is also when Jetbrains sees these bug reports, they know their users are using Flatpak, and they might be more inclined to take over the publishing it.
This is helpful, I guess the problem lies moreso with the Pop!_Shop/elementary AppCenter, which doesn’t show that link at all (see the screenshot below).
Anyway, I’m not advocating for disallowing official site linking, I just think it needs to be made more clear who should be providing support for an unofficial package.
I fully recognize(d) that being a sort of passive aggressive way of getting companies like JetBrains to publish their own flatpaks, but personally, I’m really not a fan of that—it feels underhanded to me.
