Conversation
|
|
||
| These binaries are known as **contributor binaries**. | ||
|
|
||
| Please note that no support will be provided for binaries obtained outside of [ungoogled-software](https://github.com/ungoogled-software) GitHub organisation. Usage of `chrlauncher` is also discouraged. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Binaries referenced in https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-binaries are a bit of a gray area I guess (with very few, like the Windows ones built using GitHub Actions being supported). How about
| Please note that no support will be provided for binaries obtained outside of [ungoogled-software](https://github.com/ungoogled-software) GitHub organisation. Usage of `chrlauncher` is also discouraged. | |
| Please note that no support will be provided for these **contributor binaries** as well as all other binaries obtained outside of the [ungoogled-software](https://github.com/ungoogled-software) GitHub organisation. Usage of `chrlauncher` is also discouraged. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good that you mentioned that! While writing this sentence it occurred to me that the gist of a problem with third-party binaries is the lack of convenience. Indeed people want to use ungoogled-chromium and enjoy convenient updates. Agreed, this sounds as if one wants to have one's cake and eat it. That being said if we reject any support for every binary, what's left for end-user? Build from source — inconvenient! Switch to more supported [by ungoogled-chromium] Linux distribution — inconvenient! Yeah, it diverts more into philosophical realm, but I'd be happy to hear your take on this dilemma.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think another problem with the binaries listed at https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries is that many of them are extremely outdated. If a user comes for help with their Ungoogled Chromium installation stuck 30 versions behind, is there really any support they can receive (other then being recommended to use a different variant available for their OS, if it even exists)?
I think it may be beneficial to somehow clearly mark which binaries are up-to-date and supported, and which are obsolete and shouldn't really be used until they are maintained again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but I'd be happy to hear your take on this dilemma.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I fear much of this is future work, eventually I'd like to just drop anything that isn't build by CI in one of the platform repos in the main org and let that be it. So then its everything "we" as in anyone that got "approved" by the core team to work on binaries publish is getting support, everything else not
This might still be inconvenient for platforms we dont maintain but this is the only middle ground I can think of between our current unfortunate situation with a lot of support requests for random stuff we don't have control over and only supporting source builds
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So you're still in support of excluding contributor binaries from being named as supported ones, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, although currently I guess its not clear to end users that Windows binaries are compiled by CI and wouldn't count as such.
3 participants
No description provided.