omapak is shipping IPFS Desktop as a Flatpak (the Flathub door got shut on it)

Hey. I run [omapak](https://omapak.org), an open Flatpak repo that exists because Flathub's 2026 policy bans new apps with any AI involvement in the submission. A community member's IPFS Desktop submission (flathub/flathub#10144) got closed over exactly that, which is how a 6.5k-star official client ends up with no Linux store presence. Dumb rule, so I built the alternative.

omapak now has IPFS Desktop in review: outcrop-labs/omapak#10. The manifest is that community submission, unchanged: your pinned v0.50.0 deb on the Electron BaseApp, x-checker-data wired so versions track your releases. It builds clean, and the [agent judge's public report](https://omapak.org/rubric) scored it honestly (the one advisory worth acting on: the report suggests disclosing the bundled Countly analytics in the appstream description, and disabling electron-updater inside the sandbox in favor of flatpak updates).

To be clear about the arrangement, Flathub-style: this is a third-party repack of your official release artifacts. If you'd rather own it, the submitter seat is yours and I'll step aside; if you want any changes to how it's packaged, say the word here; and if you want nothing to do with omapak, that's fine too, tell me and I'll drop it. If you ever ship an official Flatpak yourselves, we'll defer to it and close ours, same rule Flathub uses.

No questions about who or what wrote your code were asked in the making of this package.

— jon, [omapak.org](https://omapak.org) / [the mission](https://omapak.org/mission)

No repository file or test is named; the issue points to the external omapak Flatpak manifest and its review at outcrop-labs/omapak#10. Start by reviewing that manifest and the linked packaging report, then determine whether the project wants to endorse, take over, request changes to, or decline the third-party package.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.