source-build

Yes - Ubuntu, Alpine, Fedora, and others. [1] [1]: https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/blob/main/README.md#n...

Because in the relevant distros it is included in the first-party feeds. Only Debian acts like a special snowflake making it needlessly complex for everyone (including Rust). I believe there is an ongoing work to modify .NET's full source build (i.e. https://github.com/dotnet/source-build) to satisfy Debian's admission requirements, but really it's a problem inflicted by Debian on themselves, not the other way around.

I hate to defend telemetry of all things but in this particular case the criticism is unfounded and lacks context: https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/platform/telemetry https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetr... https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/tree/main/src/Cli/dotnet/Telem... In any case, Debian would use https://github.com/dotnet/source-build and dotnet/dotnet, and could easily include the argument or a patch for this. It’s unlikely to be an issue. My bet it was not in Debian because there was no one to take initiative yet or there was but that person has faced a backlash by people in Debian who are similar to vocal minority here that posts FUD because of their little personal crusade.

.NET Core is available for Debian, you just have to add Microsoft's APT source [1]. Fedora [2], Ubuntu [3], and FreeBSD [4] build .NET from source themselves. A lot of work has been done to make it possible to build .NET from source [5] without closed source components, so it might just be a matter of someone being motivated to create the package for Debian. [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/install/linux-... [2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dotnet8.0 [3]: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dotnet8 [4]: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/tree/main/lang/dotn... [5]: https://github.com/dotnet/source-build

.NET applications are technically challenging for Linux distributions to package because of the runtime dependency. https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/discussions/2960 . Git Credential Manager indeed release a self-contained binary for Linux x86_64 (no arm64 yet), though the installation size is necessarily large (80 MB) to include the .NET runtime. For comparison, git-credential-oauth Linux binaries (x86_64 and arm64) are much smaller at 5 MB. https://github.com/hickford/git-credential-oauth#comparison-...

There seems to be a discussion at https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/discussions/2960

Unfortunately, packaging applications built on .NET is still a challenge for any OS that wants to build everything from source and doesn't allow network access. Like you say, duplicating nuget into os-app-package-manager is challenging. Even side from the duplication, we need to bootstrap the ecosystem, in particular dealing with cyclic dependencies and version explosion as a result of all the different versions of all the dependencies that an average dotnet application needs. We are starting to work through it here: https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/discussions/2960. Any advice/tips/contributions would be welcome, I think.

Yes. But your list is incomplete! .NET is also part of Alpine's community repository https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/packages?name=dotnet*&branch=ed... and is also available in Homebrew https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/dotnet Other distributions are welcome to join: https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/discussions/2803

here people mess with FreeBSD afaik: Building the .NET Core SDK on FreeBSD https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/issues/1139

If you want to build .NET Core yourself, Microsoft provides you with the steps necessary to do so here: https://github.com/dotnet/source-build Maybe our definitions of open source are different, or maybe you're just shitting on Microsoft for your own reasons. Regardless of whatever your experiences have been with .NET in the past, they don't mirror the majority of the folks that use it everyday.

The C# compiler and parts of the supporting .NET runtime are written in C#, so yes there is a bootstrapping issue. Other languages like Rust or even C compilers written in C have this problem. For initial porting to a new system or processor architecture, the C++ part of CoreCLR (the main runtime for .NET) can be built with CMake and LLVM on the target system. The libraries can be cross-compiled on another system that already supports .NET and copied to the target system. Some Details are here: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... For building from source to satisfy requirements Linux distributions, Microsoft has a system to build from source. My understanding from the last time I closely looked at it is some binary dependencies are decompiled to MSIL (the bytecode used by .NET). Since CoreCLR includes a MSIL a

It's coming. Progress is being tracked in these places: https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/issues/1139 https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/14537

My understanding is that while Scott Guthrie & Co is influential today, there is at least one camp of people that opposes this new openness. There is no guarantee the "other camp" won't get influential in the future or sabotage what they can. Even dot net core is not free and open source yet. https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/blob/release/3.0/Docu... Even as they say everything is fine, I imagine they are fending off constant attacks from within Microsoft.

I don't know if it solves your specific scenario, but I do know that there's been some work done in this area. See https://github.com/dotnet/source-build#net-core-build-script... and https://github.com/dotnet/arcade#arcade

I would say not being actually free and open source is a show stopper but I'm glad there's finally some progress. https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/issues/782 I don't get it. They rewrite the whole think from scratch and there's still code they can't show the source for... I have a feeling there is still push back inside Microsoft against Scott Guttrie and the open everything crowd.