[Question] How to bypass the launcher

[marvin1099]

Pre-submit checks

• I checked for similar issues beforehand, but could not find any, not even closed ones. I could not add my bug report to any existing issue.
• I am going to take the time to to fill in all the required details. I know that the bug report will be dismissed otherwise.

Describe the bug

If i have a app i just want to run and not integrate,
there seems to be no obvious way to do that.
I have a appimage file that I like handle myself,
so I like that to be excluded by the appimage launcher.
Then the gui wont come up and it will start automatically.

Expected behavior

Maby have something like ail-cli -run $Appimage to just run a appimage

Steps to reproduce the issue

No response

Screenshots

No response

Distribution and desktop environment

Garuda Linux x86_64

Installed AppImageLauncher version

AppImageLauncher version 2.2.0 (git commit 0f91801), built on 2024-05-25 15:13:12 UTC

List of AppImages you tried

No response

Additional context

No response

[marvin1099]

Last time i tryed this this it opened the AppImage launcher as well.
This was one of the first things I tryed to bypass it.
I have not tryied it in a while though.
After I was not able to bypass the launcher I removed it.

If you say this works I will try this with the newest version in the next few days.

[Lenni-builder]

AIL hasn't really been updated in years, so that definitely didn't change.

[marvin1099]

In that case I don't think just running the appimage in the terminal works.
I can still see if that works.
Can't hurt to check.

[Beep6581]

Considering the vast amount of AppImages which fail to run due to AppImageLauncher being installed (search the internet for "execv error: No such file or directory"), and considering AppImageLauncher --appimagelauncher-help offers no helpful information, it would be great if you answered here and updated the --appimagelauncher-help output with information on how to bypass AppImageLauncher.

[marvin1099]

I found this little script on GitHub; it covers my use cases. https://github.com/un1t/appimage-desktop-entry

The launcher can be bypassed by uninstalling and switching to the script instead.

That works, but it also means not installing / uninstalling the launcher.
So its like using the Appimage Launcher Lite.
So its not really bypassing, but its basically what I do nowadays because there seems to be no way to really bypass the launcher (when it is installed) as mentioned.

[Beep6581]

That script does not bypass AppImageLauncher, it very clearly creates a desktop shortcut which launches the AppImage directly, and if you have AppImageLauncher installed and unpatched then that script will not help you one bit.

And obviously uninstalling AppImageLauncher is not bypassing it.

[TheAssassin]

There's a lot of wrong information in this thread. Let's clear some things up.

First, I'm defining "bypassing the launcher" as "you won't see the dialog". Your definition may vary, you would have to explain your motivation then. A regular AppImageLauncher installation cannot be "bypassed", as some of its components (mainly the so-called binfmt-bypass) is always used by the kernel. It's a technical limitation of the binfmt_misc Linux feature.

When using a terminal, you can always set APPIMAGELAUNCHER_DISABLE in your environment to suppress the dialog.

If you want to make a specific AppImage never trigger the integration dialog, you need to alter its main desktop file and include one of the flags supported by libappimage, e.g., X-AppImage-Integrate=false.

To truly avoid using AppImageLauncher's binfmt_bypass, you can either disable binfmt_misc resp. the specific AppImage binfmt_misc integration manually (which applies system-wide and requires root access), or you can uninstall it and may have to reboot (YMMV, uninstall log messages recommend it if in doubt).

[midnight-wonderer]

@TheAssassin:
First, I'm defining "bypassing the launcher" as "you won't see the dialog". Your definition may vary, you would have to explain your motivation then.

Agreed!
By "bypassing" I mean I want to make AppImage behave the same as when I run it from the command line, without AppImageLauncher.
The motivation is that I just want the applications I am using to work. If the packagers tested the packages without AppImageLauncher and they work, I want them to stay the same when I launch via desktop files.

In other words, removing any intrusive parts that might affect the functionalities or deviate from what the original packer intended.

P.S. I don't agree that my previous post is off-topic given the definition of bypass provided.

I originally assumed that Beep6581 has similar motivations as he mentioned that:

@Beep6581:
Considering the vast amount of AppImages which fail to run due to AppImageLauncher being installed (search the internet for "execv error: No such file or directory")

It then becomes clear later that he still wants other functionalities of AppImageLauncher; so, he wants a different level of "bypass". The objective of each person is different, we better reconcile on that point.

Some that might come across this thread might have a similar objective to mine, tho.

[TheAssassin]

By "bypassing" I mean I want to make AppImage behave the same as when I run it from the command line, without AppImageLauncher.

As pointed out before, that is impossible due to binfmt_misc. Period. I could tell you how to launch binfmt-bypass manually, but that won't solve your problem.

I'm about to give up on ARM building/packaging because of GitHub action's lack of native runners and issues with qemu, packaging for amd64 is ready and I can provide a first beta soon-ish. That version is going to solve these errors you mentioned (which are related to the static runtime which was released a bit early considering the amount of work it took for AppImageLauncher to support those properly).

In other words, removing any intrusive parts that might affect the functionalities or deviate from what the original packer intended.

Again: the only way is to disable the binfmt_misc integration system-wide, which is not supported officially.

[marvin1099]

First, I'm defining "bypassing the launcher" as "you won't see the dialog". Your definition may vary, you would have to explain your motivation then. A regular AppImageLauncher installation cannot be "bypassed", as some of its components (mainly the so-called binfmt-bypass) is always used by the kernel. It's a technical limitation of the binfmt_misc Linux feature.

Actually I also agree, I just wanted to skip the ui and system inclusion (user managed appimages).

When using a terminal, you can always set APPIMAGELAUNCHER_DISABLE in your environment to suppress the dialog.

If you want to make a specific AppImage never trigger the integration dialog, you need to alter its main desktop file and include one of the flags supported by libappimage, e.g., X-AppImage-Integrate=false.

This sounds like what I was originally looking for.
I will check it out soon, thanks.

[Beep6581]

It then becomes clear later that he still wants other functionalities of AppImageLauncher

No, I don't.

I asked how to bypass AppImageLauncher without uninstalling it, not how to prevent seeing its GUI.

[TheAssassin]

Then please share your definition of "bypass" then. You're not being clear on what you really want to achieve. There are at least two definitions in this discussion.

[Beep6581]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bypass

I'm happy to clarify. It would be great if there was information on how to run an AppImage while AppImageLauncher is installed so that AppImageLauncher is not used (bypassed).

Of course one could uninstall AppImageLauncher, but perhaps one has a reason to keep it installed and just to run a specific AppImage without it.

[midnight-wonderer]

To be clear.

No, I don't.

This part is the reply to the quote. (originally on my post)

I asked how to bypass AppImageLauncher without uninstalling it, not how to prevent seeing its GUI.

And this part is a general comment on the thread, right?

When you write them together like that they look related. (I know you already included a blank line but that may be too subtle.)
The message might not reach the intended recipients, as it may look like a reply to my message wholely.