Tagged: developers, f-droid, participation
This topic contains 6 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by dudeofx 1 year, 6 months ago.
October 31, 2015 at 8:38 pm #17852
I am a proponent of F-Droid. I’ve noticed that some developers do not want to publish their apps on F-Droid, for a variety of reasons.
I think it may be best for F-Droid if the F-Droid team takes a look at the reasons why some developers do not publish on F-Droid. By doing so, perhaps changes can be implemented to encourage everyone to participate. Note that changes might include code/policy changes or may simply be an improved articulation of existing rationales.
For example, see:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=63561767&postcount=48November 3, 2015 at 3:57 pm #17868
I’d really love to see more app developers directly maintaining their apps. We indeed do listen to developers, but in the Android world there are unfortunately a lot of devs don’t reading their own licenses. If you are floss, you cannot permit us building (and signing) apps. Most of the time we just follow their requests, since it makes no sense to work against upstream. If someone wants that specific app, he most likely should start a fork.
But as I said, we liten to their complains. In regards to the signing thing: We see the problem and have implement ways to reproducible build apps and use the official binaries, when they match our builds. While this works, it requires both — upstream and us — to standardizie on a build process, which forces them to adopt fdroidserver. Most devs don’t care, because they don’t see a benefit of it.
About release times: We build once a day more or less. Problem is not building, but signing. Signing our apks requires human interaction for entering passwords. Reproducible builds wont require signing, if they match upstream releases.
There is more to talk about here, but most issues basically boil down to: we are lacking manpower: If we had per-app maintainers, those could spend more time on the app, our build and communicating/working directly with upstream.November 13, 2015 at 8:34 am #17980
The problem I have with fdroidserver is that it is too big and has too many dependencies, especially for a headless server, so maybe it is an idea to have a ‘lite’ version.
November 13, 2015 at 8:36 am #17981
- This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by M66B.
And please contact me at marcel(plus)netguard(at)faircode.eu for directly maintaining NetGuard.November 13, 2015 at 1:22 pm #17984
well you can’t alleviate being tight fisted. Some developers like the prestige that of saying I do open source but at heart are still tight fisted with their work. I saw that with Nvidia a while back. I came to the forums cause I saw a lack of new apps on the fdroid app and I was thinking there was something wrong. If this is the reason blah, let those developers go.
The authors let go of their rights by releasing open source but they can still make life hard for the community. I saw that with Nvidia. Let them go. F-Droid is a good thing for the community. I think its their loss.November 13, 2015 at 3:29 pm #17985
@dudeofx please read this to understand why deterministic builds are important: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-one-cyberwar-and-global-compromise
It is not about making anybodies life hard, it is about security and about support. Netguard is being developed and supported in my free time, but I am not going to support any non-deterministic build, because there can be any kind of modification.November 13, 2015 at 3:53 pm #17986
The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.