Post 9o56AlcrbJLgIMeaZM by Tak@cybre.space
 (DIR) More posts by Tak@cybre.space
 (DIR) Post #9o45P7BHxfkW5c4cFc by Jo@social.diskseven.com
       2019-10-18T23:04:34Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Would it kill FOSS projects to provide Linux binaries?This is a recurring gripe, I know.
       
 (DIR) Post #9o45PAPZwzxk6nmZRQ by mansr@society.oftrolls.com
       2019-10-18T23:16:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Jo Yes.
       
 (DIR) Post #9o4HKyzfeunOzLR3lw by clacke@libranet.de
       2019-10-19T01:30:30Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Jo *which* Linux binaries?But yeah, AppImage or equivalent would probably be good for people who want to try things out.
       
 (DIR) Post #9o56AlcrbJLgIMeaZM by Tak@cybre.space
       2019-10-19T05:55:50Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Jo Having provided Linux binaries for a piece of software, I find it difficult to blame people for not doing so when compiling it yourself is (theoretically) an option."Why don't you provide a (statically, dynamically) linked executable?""I demand a (flatpak, snap, deb, rpm, aur, package repository) and these are my compelling reasons why!""Can't you provide a version without this dependency?"
       
 (DIR) Post #9o56C755JgEx7vUna4 by charlag@birb.site
       2019-10-19T08:06:08Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Tak @Jo this, we distribute AppImage at work and now it needs sandboxing but paranoid distros (Debian 👀) disabled userland containers. There's a fallback binary but it needs setuid as root so it's something package manager should do.Let's flatpak/guix everything before it's too late.
       
 (DIR) Post #9o576xIkLj4FImzT84 by socketwench@mastodon.social
       2019-10-19T00:12:13Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Jo That's...tricky. Library locations and versions differ by distro, often within distro. Some get around it by providing their own libraries (Steam) or static linking nearly everything. There's also how Flatpack has changed the landscape. Many app devs stopped bothering you make binaries and instead rely on the distro to compile it with appropriate paths, or each distro's communities instead (AUR, PPAs). Some do provide binaries (Firefox, Chrome) but distros cross install via a compat layer.
       
 (DIR) Post #9o5776l5Bk56dHJj2u by Jo@social.diskseven.com
       2019-10-19T01:41:04Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @clacke I'm not sure I understand the question. :blobnervous:
       
 (DIR) Post #9o5777ErP1tu7dFVSa by metapianycist@queer.party
       2019-10-19T02:46:22Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @clacke do you mean like for different processor architectures?@Jo
       
 (DIR) Post #9o5777lpQSGvlsfpqa by clacke@libranet.de
       2019-10-19T11:10:05Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @metapianycist @Jo I meant for different distributions, but yeah, different architectures is yet another axis.You need a CentOS binary, a Fedora binary, a Debian binary, a snap binary ... even if you don't build binaries and only provide convenient packaging metadata for users to do their distro's equivalent of git clone + dpkg-buildpackage, there's a dozen formats for packaging and your deps will be available under four different names depending on the distro.docker, flatpak, guix and nix all "solve" this if solving means #xkcd927
       
 (DIR) Post #9o57BdTPUruVFqD50q by Jo@social.diskseven.com
       2019-10-19T00:19:19Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @socketwench I feel like in most cases providing a version of the binaries with the required libraries and a version without would just do the trick. But what do I know? :blobnervous:
       
 (DIR) Post #9o57Be9ay1edMfwllY by socketwench@mastodon.social
       2019-10-19T00:21:28Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Jo A lot of Enterprise software does that, but most of them really only support one to two distros and only key versions.  :-/