{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigiboqlcks3noi66rqlcommokylikot4tx35mofdvuttvrcuwh37m",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:yrn4rbgwenb6lfhhzjegbtnc/app.bsky.feed.post/3ml3blqctexa2"
  },
  "path": "/t/exceptions-to-finish-args-own-name-org-rule/12090#post_3",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-04T19:21:13.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.flathub.org",
  "tags": [
    "ominous flathub rule"
  ],
  "textContent": "CodedOre:\n\n> Without knowing the specifics (as you didn’t gave them)\n\nIt is very specfic, that there is literally, the exact string suffix `SingleApplication`, verbatim hardcoded inside the application, that is specifically the problem.\n\n> to use the proper application id in the Flatpak.\n\nI am using a proper application id. That is part of the problem. A proper application id IMHO can’t literally end with `SingleApplication`as this exact verbatim string doesn’t carry any meaning and nobody names applications literally that, and if they did it would be a rather useless name from user perspective. So I am excluding the possibility to rename the application id to end literally with `SingleApplication`.\nNow, the way I see, the ominous flathub rule, would require one of these 2 options:\n\n  1. Get an exception from this rule.\n  2. Patch the application with one more patch, to not use literally the `SingleApplication` suffix, but to match the actual application id. And at the same time lose the coordination capabilities with let’s say AppImage instances, which still literally use the `SingleApplication` suffix\n\n\n\nThe question is which one it has to be? Obviously I would prefer to have one less patch, because that would simplify maintenance, and keep compatibility.\nBut if there is no exception granted, then there is no other option left.",
  "title": "Exceptions to finish-args-own-name-org rule?"
}