4 ms·
The configure script is not a compilation artifact. The more steps you add to get final product the more errors are possible. It's much easier for you as the p
by bhaak 3y ago
The configure script is not a compilation artifact.
The more steps you add to get final product the more errors are possible. It's much easier for you as the project developer to generate the script so you should do it.
If it's easier for you to generate the binary, you should do it as well (reproducible binaries of course). That's why Windows binaries are often shipped. With Linux binaries this is much harder (even though there are solutions now). With OSX it depends if you have the newest CPU architecture or not.
- cryptonector 3y ago> If it's easier for you to generate the binary, you should do it as well (reproducible binaries of course). I think that's the crux of what you're saying. But consider that if Fedora, Debian, etc. accepted released, built artifacts from upstreams then it would be even easier to introduce backdoors! Fedora, Debian, Nix -all the distros- need to build from sources, preferably from sources taken from upstreams' version control repositories. Not that that would prevent backdoors -it wouldn't!- but that it would at least make it easier to investigate later as the sources would all be visible to the distros (assuming non-backdoored build tools).