Search Feedback


Universal linux Unity3D Editor package (AppImage/snap/flatpak)




"As a Linux developer using an unsupported OS, I would like to have the Unity Editor packaged as a universal application so that I can install it on my system easily."

"As a Unity Editor developer, I would like to have my application packaged as a universal application with all my dependent runtimes included so that I only have to support one linux environment therefore reducing bugs and development overhead."


There are recently some very good solutions for packaging GUI applications such as the Unity Editor so that it is installable on most linux installations without worrying about dependencies.

Please package your app using one of these systems, it will be better for everyone involved.

Comments (11)

  1. 2652e716f12355633cb7e60029441ce2?d=mm


    Dec 13, 2018 21:15

    oh yes, Flatpak plz. That would be a godsend. Not as a replecament though for tar - but as an option (maybe as a replacement for deb, but I'd still keep the good old fashioned tar.gz).

  2. Ec48c9c573fa6495345e58b85a9c2e47?d=mm


    Sep 22, 2018 14:46

    Seriously packing the editor into a better format than this script would be amazing. I'm sure just using a script is good in some ways but having to deal with downloading, executing and then having to make a desktop icon is seriously a pain in the ass. A "snap install unity-editor" and youre done would be great. It would even integrate into the Software Center.

    I'm a linux admin for my main and I dont really understand the aversion to the idea. I mean I HATE using zip archives cause they lack all consistency and have no management system.

    At this point bring the .deb back at least. Its not all bad though. It seems that all the game engines on linux put little effort into their packaging. It would be nice to see Unity take the step at offering their software in a better way than all of the other engines.

  3. 084ab6672516c2fe17a3a3ee50210c73?d=mm


    Mar 29, 2018 13:28

    Flatpak is a must for third party apps like Unity. This way there's no difference if you are on Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, etc. You also don't have to worry about system upgrades, since the dependencies can be distributed with the app as a bundle.

  4. C14f211b3a09b5a998e081b96f06c3b6?d=mm


    Feb 03, 2018 21:49

    Hello I want to install on Endless OS

  5. 8db52e8db83672b0c822a9703a9027a4?d=mm


    Jan 12, 2018 22:03

    Can you please comment on why using the (e.g. app images) solutions are a headache for larger environments, with respect to specific challenges not addressed when using the systems, and/or challenges that come up during distribution or usage when using the systems?

    There's always a trade-off between sys-admin and user, but getting updated fixes and features immediately are very important for creators.

    As a specific, anecdotal point, debian stable is about 6m-9m behind the app image right now. The base install's mouse wheel doesn't even work, and that fix was merged by debian in august, and not yet trickled down to stable.

  6. 87155b272961f2dd2ecc6dc4fd820c89?d=mm


    Dec 22, 2017 09:43

    > How is a tar.gz better than an appimage file?

    If you're asking this, you should seriously reconsider your idea as a whole.

    - Flexibility upon installation automation
    - No protocol / tool / installation overheads (Really, allow users to mount arbitrary images???)
    - Script-ability
    - Security review-ability
    - Transparency

    Just from the top of my head, there's bound to be dozens more.

  7. C6d9e69f284e65bb029ce5d1420cb083?d=mm


    Dec 21, 2017 03:09

    I'd really think its up to the unity developers about whether it is a replacement or not, depends on how many hours they spend on the .sh script.

    How is a tar.gz better than an appimage file?

  8. Af23d69ba029487cea024f73eaaf2755?d=mm


    Dec 20, 2017 18:01

    No. I like that tar.gz option though.

  9. 54c2a401b421c768491d6e74cb0fd945?d=mm


    Dec 20, 2017 11:36

    Absolutely not as a replacement for the current system. Could be nice for some people as an option, but don't force everyone to use one of these horrible systems. What would really be helpful is to have a tar.gz option and a simple list of dependencies that aren't included in that.

  10. 87155b272961f2dd2ecc6dc4fd820c89?d=mm


    Dec 20, 2017 09:46

    No, sorry, but no. I could potentially see this as an optional, entirely 100% non- required alternate download, but from an Administrative standpoint I do not want this AT ALL.

    I can see that you're coming from a "user" perspective, but these systems are a maintenance nightmare in a larger environment.

    Also, I do not believe the very few dependencies UnityEditor has actually warant the additional overhead of yet another packaging system.

    I don't think it's a good idea to propose complexity onto others for ones own simplicity.

Your opinion counts

Help us make things better. Share your great idea for improving Unity or vote for other people’s.

Log in to post a new idea








AI & Navigation






Asset Store


Asset Store Publisher






Cloud Build




Docs & Tutorials






Game Performance Reporting


















Profiling & Optimization