Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able

On 28.12.2024 00:56, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 28.12.2024 00:22, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:

[...]

>
No need to be skeptical, we live in modern ages
where things have been made quite convenient for us.

>
LOL. :-)

 
My comment above was a reference to the bad old
days when you had to manually download tar.gz packages
and compile them to satisfy dependencies. Now the
builds are super easy with the help of package management.

I see; you were referring to the way the technical process
works.

Personally I don't think that package managers contribute
a lot since for ordinary users it's the same whether the
package managers install a binary package or a source that
is compiled under the hood. The difference is that source
package needs a development environment (compiler, etc.)
that "ordinary users" might not have installed or may not
want to get installed (just for that).

 

Compiling Thunderbird should be very easy indeed
when we use Linux distro's package management.

>
You expect _users_ of tools to use a _development_
environment to fix *inherent* shortcomings of a tool?
(Shortcomings that should not be there in the first
place!)

 
Why would you think so? This is just one way to
solve the problem. [...]

For a specific type of users. - The description you gave
was describing a development process; that's not something
that ordinary users would typically do (or want to do).

Your problem solving suggestion goes even farther with yet
more inherent issues that users of package managers might
not like (editing sources, bypassing standard installation
of regular updates with an own [temporary] version/branch).

Janis