Hmm... So, requiring a sandbox to run @usebottles is considered evil and proprietary software, but patching it to remove the donate button without updating support links is considered fine? Uh huh...
Edit: Please keep in mind that this was not a decision made by the entire openSUSE community. This is addressed to the people who authored and accepted the patch.
Update: The patch is no longer being applied.
@TheEvilSkeleton @usebottles As much as I agree or not agree on this issue ranting here doesn't get us anywhere.
To me it does read like retaliation. You add an error that breaks the application outside of Flatpak then I remove the donation button.
The whole situation does read like jumping from one thing to another to be in the end at something which doesn't have anything to do with the topic.
@TheEvilSkeleton @usebottles Yes SUSE and openSUSE have some things to do with each other. One contributes to the other but in this context the situation does not reflect on any of the organizations involved but on the packager and the upstream. If there's an issue open a bug in the Bugzilla like everyone can do but ranting, foaming and raging here is just wasted time and energy. If there's no bug about this it might as well never have happened at all is the point I'm making.
> on this issue ranting here doesn't get us anywhere.
Apparently, neither does writing an article about it, so as far as I'm aware: upstream opinions go straight to /dev/null. I did what I believe to be the best by taking it more openly and publicly and raising awareness.
> You add an error that breaks the application outside of Flatpak then I remove the donation button.
You are severely understating what you did. All I did was to make you require a few liner patch and hurt your ego, and your response to that was to remove a source of income. That said, that's a pretty good indicator to me that distro packagers are prone to have no feelings and respect towards upstream developers,[1] which I'm now convinced that we're doing the right thing (when I was previously unsure).
> One contributes to the other but in this context the situation does not reflect on any of the organizations involved but on the packager and the upstream
Don't put words in my mouth. I haven't mentioned either organizations for these issues.[2]
[1]: not everybody, of course
[2]: I do blame the people who enforce the decisions in openSUSE, Fedora, etc. for allowing distro maintainers to abuse their status
@TheEvilSkeleton Why do you say you? Am I the packager? I haven't put words in your mouth. I was merely summarizing the situation. I choose to reply to your comment since it seemed like it was the top comment. From what I see neither upstream nor downstream are the ones who should receive a badge for their good communication.
@thaodan oh I see, my apologies. For reference:
> You add an error that breaks the application outside of Flatpak then I remove the donation button.
I interpreted it as a personal "You" and "I" (rather than impersonal), so I thought you were the packager who decided this. Sorry again 
@TheEvilSkeleton The I was written as I in my opinion about this. The you regarding the sandbox exit patch was direct at you but not the rest. Anyway np.
@TheEvilSkeleton I created a request to remove the patch to remove the donation button. There also had been a request 5 hours earlier.
https://build.opensuse.org/requests/1232122
https://build.opensuse.org/requests/1232626
@thaodan thank you, you're really kind :)
And I once again apologize about before...
@TheEvilSkeleton No problem. Just next time reach out at the project directly or ping some of the contributors.
Now lets all calm down and spend our time more productive (:
@TheEvilSkeleton The request has been merged, the patch has been removed.
@TheEvilSkeleton All you did was to add patch that could be reverted? I don't think the amount of lines matter on the impact of the patch.
The patch was not just a warning during build but a fatal error when the application is started.
I don't think this way of communication of trying to settle this under public pressure doesn't get anyone anywhere except that it does trigger more public
outrage.
@TheEvilSkeleton This whole topic went out of hand, it isn't anymore about logic or to fix a specific problem but to attack each other. Really why did you not try to create a bug
in the openSUSE Bugzilla?
@thaodan why should I? I as an upstream shouldn't be running after downstream maintainers
@TheEvilSkeleton @thaodan Sure, downstreams should take heed of upstream’s requests for how to package their software. Upstreams generally know better about how it’s meant to work.
People make mistakes. Sometimes people make malicious changes.
If you spot a problem with a downstream, the only way that problem is ultimately going to be fixed is through that downstream’s issue tracker and CI, as that’s their change process.
(cont)
So you have a choice between (A) posting about it on social media, or (B) filing an issue (or MR) on their issue tracker.
If the change is a mistake, (B) will hopefully quickly lead to a happy resolution.
If the change is deliberate, (B) potentially won’t lead to a quick resolution, but at least the right people will be talking about it in the right venue.
(cont)
In both cases, (A) will probably just lead to people getting enraged…and not in the right venue to actually change code. So the discussion in the issue tracker is still needed later anyway, but now with an audience of shit-stirrers and with participants who are emotionally backed into a corner.
---
Sorry to be on a soapbox, and sorry for teaching grandmother how to suck eggs, but if this advice helps someone else avoid an internet explosion in future, I’ll be happy.
@pwithnall @TheEvilSkeleton I agree with of your points. What I want to add is that downstream distributors often know more about the packing and/or maintenance aspect of the software than the upstream since it's their main job and in the long they are the ones that maintain a specific version these days. I don't say the upstream doesn't know anything but distribution is usually not something that they have to attend to much. Which also means the packager should know to engage with upstream..