Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Imagine you come across a small but somewhat useful piece of software, written in C or C++, built using a typical buildsystem like Meson or straightforward Make. There aren't any unreasonable dependencies or version requirements either.
Think something like scdoc.
But, there's a Dockerfile in the repo (starting FROM an outdated ubuntu image, naturally), all the build instructions prominently recommend doing the build in Docker, ...
1/3
...and all the usage instructions just as prominently recommend using a pre-built Docker image provided by them.
Should you file a bug report, where all signs point to a rather obvious issue in their code, and happen to mention that you weren't in fact using Docker, but just built the software in the natural & straightforward way, the maintainers close the report, saying that non-Docker builds are unsupported, ...
2/3
since they don't have the capacity nor the desire to support the multitude of differing environments & distros.
Finally, upon startup, the software checks to see if it's running inside Docker, and prints a loud & annoying warning about an unsupported configuration otherwise.
3/3
arc) 
@bugaevc can you tell an old-fashioned eldritch horror story instead, this one is too scary
@bugaevc This is rage inducing and upsetting. It sounds real, though.
@bugaevc [Flatpak rant elided]
The ability to build it is one of the requirements for software to be free
Isn't it ?
Is building without docker included in the clause ? 
