Hello, I'm 7Ji, the co-maintiner of `wechat-beta-bwrap`, I've improved
the package in various ways since I've invited as the co-maintainer by
the original maintainer lilongyu after the PRQ, and I'm writing in
oppose to this merge request.
This package is basically wechat-uos-bwrap
This is not right, different from `wechat-uos-bwrap`, which expects an
existing `wechat-uos` to provide uos licensing files,
`wechat-beta-bwrap` packs the license files by itself. Many feel it
annoying to have both packages intalled when they only want to run one
of them: the QT natively compiled one.
And this provides `wechat-beta`, a leaked build that identified itself
as a different program from the mainline `wechat` that `wechat-uos`
provides. It was never released as main release from wechat.qq.com, nor
weixin.qq.com, and it does not conflict with the official main build.
This means `wechat-beta` shall be treated as a distinct package from the
previous `wechat-uos`
with no sandboxing which means this proprietary app can obtain any
system data or user data
This is not right, `wechat-beta-bwrap` came with sandboxing at day0,
with its name marking this, although limited, and only protected the
user home but not system data. It is not "no sandboxing", but "no proper
sandboxing". I've since improved the package after being invited and
added more strict sandboxing, while also made it possible to smoothly
call up host applications with easier xdg-open integration.
The reason why wechat-uos-bwrap doesn't come with beta in name is the
fact that the app doesn't recognize itself as a beta
`wechat-beta` is a dedicated, non-mainline build that's created for
private testing of native QT stack, considered itself `wechat-beta`. It
shall live in its own namespace. And `wechat-uos-bwrap` on another
hand, should stick to the non-QT `wechat` build provided by
`wechat-uos`, not `wechat-beta`. It is `-uos-bwrap` having a wrong name,
not `-beta-bwrap` being a duplicate.
Additionally, as of writing, `wechat-beta-bwrap` has 21 votes, and
`wechat-uos-bwrap`has 11 votes, it is not right to merge from a highly
voted one a lowly voted one.
Yours,
Guoxin "7Ji" Pu
