since when is not packaging a piece of software on a given platform == the software not supporting the platform at all?
the confusion may come from whether
- not supporting == forget it, it’s way too much work to get it start and upstream won’t maintain the patches, or
- not supporting == go and send your bug reports to the packager, upstream doesn’t have time for this
it’s especially uncool if normally 2. would be the case, but the developers deliberately make the software defective by using fingerprinting/drm to make sure that 1. is the case
@jookia yeah, and I guess you’d (firmly) send away people running unofficial binaries to ask support from whoever made the unofficial binary
but that’s way different than actively making sure nothing but the official binaries run at all