to...@tuxteam.de (12020-04-28): > I never tried, mind you. I've got better things to do with my time than > wrangling down a Java Monster (TM). > > That said, I don't know what your point is (besides whining around a > bit here): you get the thing as a Debian packaged source. You have > shown some expertise in this list. Putting those two things together, > you're in the enviable position to try to run a Debian package build [1]: > thus you get a wonderful basis to start off. > > What's missing?
What's missing is control, and the trust that comes with it. Even assuming that the packaging rules succeed, which is a pretty bold assumption. Even assuming that the packaging rules succeed without re-installing in ~/.something half the libraries in the world because these rules are actually a thin veneer of Debian packaging on top of a completely alien package system, because nowadays every stupid language feel the need to have its own package system and its own build system. Then running a build script as a black box, being forced to run it in exactly the build environment it was designed for, is only marginally better than installing binary blobs. Libre Software means that the source code is available, but the source code is not just the code files. Distributing the source tree but keeping the know-how to be able to do something with it, that is not Libre Software. If it is done on purpose, to be able to claim opensourceness and the PR benefits that come with it, without having the drawback of giving away usable code for free, it is entirely dishonest. If it is done because of incompetence, because the developers are actually unable to develop most of the things in their project and just produce monstrous frankenware, it is less dishonest, but the end result is the same. We cannot prevent these projects from existing, but at least we have to realise they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
