• fl42v@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    Actively resisting packaging is not the way, tho. You can just require an issue to be reproducible with flatpak, and otherwise tell ppl to bother the maintainer.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      require an issue to be reproducible with flatpak,

      As a guy who worked in OS security, no fucking way will I be doing that.

      • fl42v@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        So, basically, you make software that doesn’t work outside flatpak without patches, then start removed about how much those patches suck, then, instead of pretty much saying “we only support flapaks, stop bothering us with distro-related issues” on the issue page, you add even more stuff that needs to be patched out because “sesurity”? Makes perfect sense, ngl.