Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Talk about code development, features, specific bugzilla bugs, enhancements, patches, and other highly technical things.
Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific referenced Bugzilla bugs, mercurial, etc.

This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Most "bug reports" do not belong in this board and should initially be posted in Community Support or other relevant support boards.

Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27872
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by Moonchild » 2020-08-04, 07:14

Free Bird wrote:
2020-08-03, 16:56
I'm sure that if "Let them have the source but not the ability to build it" ever became a corporate strategy to effect software that is free in name but not in spirit, Stallman would come up with a GPLv4 to assert what he sees as users' god-given right to build all free software themselves.
Off-topic:
First off, RMS can piss off already as far as I'm concerned because he has done more damage to the FOSS ecosystem than anyone else.

Also, if he would somehow write w GPL v4 that guarantees buildability, then nobody would ever adopt it because it is impossible:
- You can't guarantee source code will build always and everywhere in the most exotic environments where tools are simply never available by design.
- On the other side of the coin it's an automatic pass if the devs can build it and can provide the binaries for your platform, because it is immediate proof it's buildable. There is no restriction on non-free toolchains and there should not be.
Nothing says the source must be buildable by every dimwit on their laptop. That is not what the Open Source concept is about at all, and tying it to buildability or use of that code is nonsense. The source itself is what the Open Source license is about, not the usage. Read the term and see what it says? Open Source. Open. Source. Not Open Applications or Open Programs.
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
Free Bird
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 57
Joined: 2020-04-19, 23:21

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by Free Bird » 2020-08-04, 11:47

Off-topic:
I was basically imagining a Tivo-like scenario: fork an open source project, start building it with your own compiler and gradually increase the use of extensions only your compiler supports until said compiler becomes essential for building the code successfully. In time, the source will still technically be available, but mostly useless. I'm not aware of anyone currently doing such a thing, but one high-profile case could lead to quite a backlash.
None of this applies to Pale Moon, but I don't think the idea that users should be able to build the code themselves is completely unreasonable. Conversely, it's also not completely unreasonable to say "Our build system demonstrably works as documented, so any problems you encounter using it are your own".

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27872
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by Moonchild » 2020-08-04, 12:54

You're missing my point. The licensing is about the source code, not its use. Whatever you use it for and in whatever way you use it is entirely up to you and by definition your own responsibility (both its sane use and using it in a license-compliant way). The disclaimer that the code is released "as-is" is there for a very good reason, exactly to not tie it to any usage scenario or environmental requirement.
How about source code that's released as just a component? do you as a maintainer have to then demonstrate its use to be able to open license it? madness!
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
Free Bird
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 57
Joined: 2020-04-19, 23:21

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by Free Bird » 2020-08-04, 13:54

I think I get your point, I was just trying to point out that some corners of the open source / free software world, more specifically FSF people, think just abiding by the letter of the license isn't enough, you have to follow it in spirit as well. That's how the GPLv3 and the AGPL came into being. They saw people break (what they think of as) "the spirit of the license", so they came up with a new version (GPLv3) or a new license altogether (AGPL).

None of this has any immediate bearing on Pale Moon, but the underlying philosophy may serve to explain some users' viewpoints as expressed here.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27872
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by Moonchild » 2020-08-04, 13:58

Free Bird wrote:
2020-08-04, 13:54
you have to follow it in spirit as well
Sorry but last I checked FOSS wasn't a religion. That's Stallman for you right there.
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
adesh
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1200
Joined: 2017-06-06, 07:38

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by adesh » 2020-08-04, 14:20

Off-topic:
Isn't having the source pointless if you can't do anything with it? I don't want code so I could just stare at it for long.

User avatar
Free Bird
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 57
Joined: 2020-04-19, 23:21

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by Free Bird » 2020-08-04, 14:38

Moonchild wrote:
2020-08-04, 13:58
Free Bird wrote:
2020-08-04, 13:54
you have to follow it in spirit as well
Sorry but last I checked FOSS wasn't a religion. That's Stallman for you right there.
Agreed! I don't like the man either, but he does have his following. Actually, I think the religion analogy is rather apt. Stallman even looks like a religious sect leader...

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7861
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-08-04, 15:52

Free Bird, Moonchild wasn't countering you to counter what you said in general, I think, but to counter what some people expect with huge entitlement attached. Though, I don't think your last few posts have that.. Others people's in this thread tho, like the OP.
Image
- Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood! -

Image

User avatar
Lunokhod
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 286
Joined: 2017-04-20, 21:25
Contact:

Re: Hypothetical question: What would the ideal UXP / UXP application build system be?

Post by Lunokhod » 2020-08-04, 20:26

Scons is the best build system I found for my use. The documentation is outdated, incomplete, or just plain wrong. A lot of the given examples don't even work. The docs omit or barely cover basic details like how to uninstall a program. A lot of the language constructs are non-intuitive. I gave up on it and started again with GNU auto tools / make but that was even worse, having all these faults plus requiring stacks of autogenerated garbage to be shipped in the project, so I went back to Scons. Meson (last time I looked) had no built in support for gettext, while Scons is pretty good. Even so I had to add a Python configure script to get it to work how I wanted (possibly because I wasn't that good with Scons) and that was for a really simple project. But the end result was very minimal and fast building.
The custom python approach makes a lot of sense when you try the alternatives, I can see why they did that. After Python 2 is 3 - but later there will be 4, 5, etc! Even build systems get updated, half the examples in the auto tools docs gave "deprecated" warnings or just didn't work any more.

Post Reply