TOPIC:

So why not provide a package for Linux that can be simply installed? That would be acceptable.
Having to run a binary which does god knows what is not acceptable.
Also, my preference is to install into ~/bin which definitely does not need root, so why not attempt the install first and then ask for root if needed.
See - there are many ways to make an installer which is less dodgy than a binary which asks for root and does not tell you at all what its doing....

Hello Rickp,

The tone of your reaction does not do any justice to the efforts of the XyGrib team. Even after a completely plausible explanation you continue to openly suspect them of evil intentions. Persevering in your distrust makes any further discussion useless. Nor can this lead to a better solution than the one you already found. Not installing the software is by far the best solution for your anxiety.

By the way, I am just a gratefull user on all platforms, and not involved in the development of this fantastic program.
Regards, Ruud

Hello Ruud,
If you are happy to run randomly downloaded binaries as root, then good luck! I agree that XyGrib (and ZyGrib before it and qtvlm and opencpn) are all great bits of software for sailors. The only one that requires you to run a binary to install is XyGrib. Of course, you think I'm being paranoid but its the opposite. I frankly don't care for me as I know unix well enough to be secure (indeed, I have built XyGrib from source and have modified it to read other sort-of-grib files that I use).
My concern is that making people happy to run random binaries as root is a very very bad idea indeed. Its totally unnecessary too, which is why I'm kicking up a fuss.

Hello Rickp,
I can not judge if your considerations are better than the ones the XyGrib teams makes. As I also can not think of any reason why the makers of XyGrib deliberately choose a hazordous way of distributing. I find their explanation very plausible, but have no intention nor the knowledge to take part in that discussion.

So the reason that I reacted is explicitly not the matter that you adress but your tone of voice and the mistrust it is based on. I find that not very constructive and above all very inappropriate to the developers of xygrib.

Regards,
Ruud

rickp wrote: So why not provide a package for Linux that can be simply installed? That would be acceptable.

Hello Rickp,
There are standard installation packages prepared for Debian and for Ubuntu packages.debian.org/source/sid/xygrib and packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=xygrib . However these are prepared by third parties and not by us. This is normal procedure in the Linux community where most Linux packages are prepared and maintained by a third party. I'm sure that they adhered to our source files but if you tend towards paranoia, think what they may have added to the packages without us or you knowing!

As you asked, there are two reasons we prepared an installer for Linux. 1) It provides a single installer for all flavours of Linux without exception and saves the problem of developing and maintaining multiple packages. 2) Less than 5% of our Linux users are happy to compile and build from the source files. The installer gives the remaining 95% a solution.

If you are willing to join the small XyGrib team and take upon yourself to create and maintain 6 or 7 standard Linux installation packages, I'm more than happy to ditch the Linux binary installer. It's purely an issue of manpower.

Best,
David

David, thanks for the answer. I did indeed see some packages but they looked a little out of date. I'm sure that before you had an AppImage which seemed to be good solution - and (correct me if I'm wrong) the installer seems to install that? Another option would be a snap store image.
I doubt I'll have time to contribute to packaging but if that changes I'll let you know. Travelling now for a few days, so you'll get some peace from me If I get my current grib issue resolved, I may send a pr..