refact fix: Flatpak

[jeevithakannan2]

Chris read additional description before merging !!

Type of Change

• [ ] New feature
• [x] Bug fix
• [ ] Documentation update
• [x] Refactoring
• [ ] Hotfix
• [ ] Security patch
• [ ] UI/UX improvement

Description

• For the scripts in office suits to work #717 must be merged.
• Moved flatpak handling to common-script due to path conflicts when setup-flatpak is called from different tabs.
• Added apk package manager in case #814 gets merged. If not remove apk package manager before merging
• The following error was reproduced by removing the pacman installation section, forcing the script to use flatpak for installation:

[!NOTE] This issue was originally identified on another laptop running openSUSE. Since no screenshots were captured in openSUSE, the workaround was applied to reproduce the error.

Testing

• Tested on arch and openSUSE, works as expected.

Additional Description

• This implementation is basic and can be improved in future.
• There is a lot of room for improvement here which can be implemented later in the future.

The idea mentioned in https://github.com/ChrisTitusTech/linutil/pull/705#issuecomment-2383182990 was not implemented because of the following error

It occurs because setup-flatpak is also sourcing common-script and the root sourcing happens in the communication dir (zoom). It will try to access common-script in the application setup folder instead of trying to source the common-script from the root directory

Checklist

• [x] My code adheres to the coding and style guidelines of the project.
• [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
• [x] My changes generate no errors/warnings/merge conflicts.

[ghost]

i dont agree with these changes at all

[ghost]

setup-flatpak is in the dir before zoom... just add an extra dot, why are you adding all of this bloat into linutil?

[ghost]

DONT merge this yet, needs more discussing, this implementation is a bit dirty and i feel like we can just combine the flatpak command_exists with the reg one

[jeevithakannan2]

DONT merge this yet, needs more discussing, this implementation is a bit dirty and i feel like we can just combine the flatpak command_exists with the reg one

Combined both flatpak command_exists ready to be merged !!