zlacker

[return to "Open Source Doesn't Require Providing Builds"]
1. torste+a4[view] [source] 2024-01-22 20:03:51
>>mroche+(OP)
Ehhhh... the makefile or AC/AM, which is to say the build process, has long been considered part of the source code.

It's not strictly required by the definition of open source, but....

A) If you don't provide builds and successful building is more involved then ./configure && make && make install, then you're pretty user-unfriendly.

B) If you aren't providing builds for target platforms then you probably aren't building for target platforms, which means part of your software has zero test coverage. Again, not a requirement, but it's fair for people to count that as a negative.

◧◩
2. jacque+Hy[view] [source] 2024-01-22 22:39:51
>>torste+a4
Especially for user facing (so, UI based) software it definitely isn't as easy as .configure && make && make install for a very large number of packets.

This QT version or that? Hunt down some weird dependency. Find that that dependency clashes with a more recent version, but you can't downgrade. Oh, oops your app depends on a quirk in glibc v x but your system only has v y so now you have to figure out how to run two different glibc's without conflicting with each other, and better not make a mistake during that installation or your system may never boot again.

Complex software can be quite a pain to build properly, more-so if you want to target multiple different architectures or operating systems.

[go to top]