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