My question is why they didn't just make a Flatpak. Then they and their users wouldn't need to go through any of this hassle and distro fragmentation at all. Even if they didn't want to publish it on Flathub, Flatpak supports single file packages people can directly install as well.
Were they not aware of `flatpak build-bundle`? They could have just built it once and ran that command on the result and then put that on the archives of their repository and been done with it. It's not like a regular package build where there are different system conditions to keep an eye on. It would work no matter what.
But that's literally already true, and at least with Flatpak they'd only need to make a single package to support all distributions and system configurations, whereas what they're already doing is supporting 15 different packaging systems and distributing a fragile install script that more people will have problems with. So this objection makes literally zero sense.
It isn't, though? Unlike the other packaging formats, it actually works across distros and independent of system setups, so if you choose it, you aren't limited to a specific distro or group of distros like the other packaging formats. Therefore, if you choose it, you don't have to deal with any further fragmentation of the Linux desktop. So yes, while you are "technically" correct, which is the best kind of correct, you're practically speaking quite wrong. It may technically be just another packaging format, but unlike the other ones, it completely removes the need to worry about fragmentation entirely if you adopt it, whereas if you use a bass script, various system configurations will conflict with it, and if you use a discropackage, then you'll keep helping to make new packages for various discros.
