Should we consider BinDeps abandoned?

The last commit was jan10th, the last merge aug14th 2018, the last release aug15th 2018. Several PRs are pending (incl. >1.0/1.1 changes preventing `BinDeps.debug()` by IanButterworth · Pull Request #395 · JuliaPackaging/BinDeps.jl · GitHub).
In dlopen/dlcose change · Issue #397 · JuliaPackaging/BinDeps.jl · GitHub Elliot is cited with

The old world of BinDeps.jl fades slowly into the long, dark sleep of forgotten heroes.

At the same time i see it registered into General and Stefan’s changes 4 days ago.

1 Like

Everything in METADATA is registered in General, and there have been a few PRs to General that have touched almost any file. So I wouldn’t consider this as any sign of activity regarding BinDeps itself.


The list of packages depending on BinDeps should give you an idea of why it can’t be abandoned (yet):


We have to use it for those deps that don’t allow shipping pre-compiled binaries.

OK, i’ll ping the “current” developers if they have an idea how to proceed.

1 Like

Which are those and why can’t you ship pre-compiled binaries? Is it a legal restriction or a technical one?

The former. Research-only code like BLOSSOMV has a very strict non-commercial license which does not allow anyone to redistribute the code and its derivatives(binaries).

One work-around may be to write a builder and provide instructions for people to generate and use their own BB binaries. I also don’t think that we can support non-free software like this as a dependency in General.

1 Like

Oh, and it may be worth reaching out to the authors to see if they’d be willing to grant an exception for the BB situation. They could obviously continue to require non-commercial usage only. We could maybe have a NonCommercial registry where non-commercial-only packages and packages that depend on them live. That way if you install that registry, you’re clearly and explicitly non-commercial and no one can claim ignorance for using the software non-commercial commercially.