Package request: polymc

[orvitpng]

Project description

PolyMC is a Minecraft client launcher and fork of MultiMC that allows you to easily manage multiple installations of Minecraft at once.

Metadata

• homepage URL: https://polymc.org/
• source URL: https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC
• license: GPL 3
• platforms: linux, darwin

---

Note for maintainers: Please tag this issue in your PR.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to issues you find important.

[orvitpng]

I understand that this package has been controversial in the past due to a major controversy that took place and caused #196624. However, this has since died down. The reasoning that I can find is from #228565 (comment), which states two main issues: primarily that you need to trust PolyMC's infrastructure and that the project isn't maintained. Well, the project is maintained for now and I'm not sure there is still a reason to not trust their infrastructure. The project still has good code and has features that I personally find can be preferential to the implementation in forks of it.

[MisileLab]

I think prismlauncher has more contributors and features, is there any reason to using polymc while prismlauncher exists?

edit(I used gpt4o to make my phrase naturally):
For anyone commenting on this issue, please avoid blaming or criticizing the author for requesting this package. Instead, consider asking why polymc needs to be packaged.

[pluiedev]

1. Just use Prism Launcher.
2. PolyMC after the takeover is fundamentally built by bigots who are against the Nix Community Values. I don't think it would be wise to include anything in Nixpkgs built by someone who hijacked a project and tried to "reclaim" it from "radical queer leftoids", especially when the Nix ecosystem and many of its core contributors are queer ourselves.
3. If you want PolyMC that's built by the people who originally built it before Lenny unceremoniously kicked all of them out, try Prism Launcher.

[normalcea]

Just want to append to this: the maintainers of PolyMC already have instructions for using PolyMC's nix derivation with and without flakes (https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/develop/nix/NIX.md). They also provide an AppImage and a Flathub port as well. If you really need PolyMC then you have many ways of getting it without needing to rely on nixpkgs.

[orvitpng]

I'm going to try to answer whatever questions y'all have. Regarding why I choose PolyMC over PrismLauncher, PolyMC simply feels more natural to me. I've encountered less jank, and it goes without some changes that I'm not necessarily a fan of. "Just us[ing] Prism Launcher" is not what I want to do. Both launchers are equally effective at their core jobs, but I favor PolyMC's direction. Does that automatically mean I side with any harmful ideologies? I don't think so.

To expand on the argument that PolyMC is problematic because it's "built by bigots," should we also discard the contributions of anyone who has any level of controversial view (like ESR, who has contributed to the source of packages in this very repository)? I fully respect anyone's personal choice to avoid using or contributing to the package if they've been hurt by the maintainer's statements. However, I believe the software itself can still serve a valid purpose to real end users. The technical merit of the code itself remains unchanged regardless of its origin; good code is good code no matter who's mouth it came from.

It's like a tariff on other software, except instead of paying money, I'm paying with my time to shoehorn it into my configuration. It is clear that there is some level of need to balance technical merits with ethical and community considerations, but this is quite frustrating for someone who does have a preference to which launcher.

[pluiedev]

To expand on the argument that PolyMC is problematic because it's "built by bigots," should we also discard the contributions of anyone who has any level of controversial view (like ESR, who has contributed to the source of packages in this very repository)?

To clarify, my objection is not solely that it is built by bigots (heck, as you said, we have/had some contributors whose views I heavily disagree with here). My objection is that it is a project that was hijacked, in a broadly broadcasted event that caused rightly deserved outrage that reverberated throughout the Minecraft community and beyond.

A malicious actor performed a veritable coup d'état, for the explicit goal of ousting all existing maintainers of the project (nearly all of whom, I should remind you, have moved to Prism) due to them being perceived as radical leftists while not actively doing anything other than being who they are, queer or not. This is a project rooted in ill-will and is everything the Nix community agrees to stand against.

If you like PolyMC for whichever technical decision it decides to take, then you are free to use their official guide on how to use it on Nix. There'll be no push back from me if you do that. However, I'll not condone any attempts at packaging software born out of bigotry like this.

Should you rebut any further, then feel free to additionally mention the Steering Committee and Nix community moderators. I believe they'll cast better judgement.

[orvitpng]

I'd love to see the community's perspective on this. At the end of the day, if only I want this, then it really wouldn't be necessary for inclusion in nixpkgs. However, I think we should carefully consider the precedent of blocking open source software based on package politics. Many proprietary packages in nixpkgs come from companies with questionable practices or unknown internal politics, but we accept these because they provide technical value to users. It seems inconsistent to apply stricter ethical standards to open source projects where we can actually see the controversies, while giving proprietary software a pass simply because their issues remain hidden. The transparency of open source shouldn't become a liability.

[pluiedev]

@NixOS/steering What do you all think?

[MisileLab]

I think we can add a package.
The maintainer of PolyMC(lenny) did bad things, but the program isn't a virus or unmaintained.
Maybe, we can add some warnings or decide to not build on hydra, but I think we need to provide a package at least.

edit:
I also agree with orvitpng's opinion that we apply a stricter standard than a closed-source package.

[normalcea]

@orvitpng

The project still has good code and has features that I personally find can be preferential to the implementation in forks of it.

If you can elaborate/cite specific core features that PolyMC has over Prismlauncher that would be helpful to know for building your case. If (for example) PolyMC implements feature "foobar" in a way that you personally prefer compared to the same implementation by Prismlauncher that isn't a good enough reason to have both packages available in nixpkgs proper in my opinion. If you can also find more users (specifically NixOS & nixpkgs users) who prefer PolyMC and are willing to share why here then it would also help your case.

As others have mentioned before, Prismlauncher is far more active than PolyMC (just going off surface level GitHub metrics alone, comparing the two side by side is a night and day difference). My main point here is if you really like a feature that PolyMC has, why not open up the issue with the Prismlauncher maintainers so those changes could benefit everyone.

To expand on the argument that PolyMC is problematic because it's "built by bigots,"

• https://polymc.org/news/what-happened/

A team restructure occurred that unfortunately led people to spread false information about the state of our metadata
and update servers. However, these remain safe to users, and we're dedicated to the privacy and security of PolyMC users now and in the future.

PolyMC maintainers, to my knowledge, have not apologized/owned up to how their removal of the code of conduct has hurt users and seem to brush it under the rug. Instead they lie by omission and claim that they were the victims by rogue team members (and seemingly don't bother with providing any sort of proof or rebuttal). Re-including PolyMC in nixpkgs would mean considering this acceptable behavior that can be overlooked. If you could get PolyMC to revert their CoC removal, I'd personally be impressed.

This isn't solely a "built by bigots" issue, it's a "built by liars" issue as well. They just happen to overlap a lot of the time.

As this nixpkgs contributor said over two years ago

I totally get your point, but I don't see a contradiction to what I said. And this is not a question of security or safety, but one about trust.

[djacu]

If you can elaborate/cite specific core features that PolyMC has over Prismlauncher that would be helpful to know for building your case. If (for example) PolyMC implements feature "foobar" in a way that you personally prefer compared to the same implementation by Prismlauncher that isn't a good enough reason to have both packages available in nixpkgs proper in my opinion. If you can also find more users (specifically NixOS users) who prefer PolyMC and are willing to share why here then it would also help your case.

@orvitpng does not need to build a case to satisfy anyone's demands to do so. They want to package and maintain it, and it is their choice to do so.

As others have mentioned before, Prismlauncher is far more active than PolyMC (just going off surface level GitHub metrics alone, comparing the two side by side is a night and day difference). My main point here is if you really like a feature that PolyMC has, why not open up the issue with the Prismlauncher maintainers so those changes could benefit everyone.

As they have said, they prefer using PolyMC. They do not need to open issues or submit PRs to Prismlauncher to satisfy you or anyone else. It is their choice for what software they use.

---

Unless there is a technical or security reason, there is no argument for keeping PolyMC from being packaged in nixpkgs. If you do not want to use it for any reason, then simply don't. Anyone who is curious can see the history of the project and decide for themselves.

[winterqt]

@NixOS/steering What do you all think?

We've added this issue to our agenda. We will discuss throughout the week and during our meeting on Sunday, after which you will have an answer.

[0n]

1. Just use Prism Launcher.

I don't want to

2. PolyMC after the takeover is fundamentally built by bigots who are against the [Nix Community Values](https://github.com/NixOS/org/blob/main/doc/values.md). I don't think it would be wise to include anything in Nixpkgs built by someone who _hijacked_ a project and tried to "reclaim" it from "radical queer leftoids", especially when the Nix ecosystem and many of its core contributors are queer ourselves.

It was not hijacked, it was started by Lenny and Swirl, Swirl later gave the project fully to Lenny, Lenny was the owner/head maintainer from then on.
Evidence: https://web.archive.org/web/20220523090620/https://polymc.org/news/new-maintainers/

3. If you want PolyMC that's built by the people who originally built it before Lenny unceremoniously kicked all of them out, try Prism Launcher.

Again, the project was originally started by Lenny and Swirl, it also has received multiple updates since most contributors were kicked

[0n]

If you can elaborate/cite specific core features that PolyMC has over Prismlauncher that would be helpful to know for building your case. If (for example) PolyMC implements feature "foobar" in a way that you personally prefer compared to the same implementation by Prismlauncher that isn't a good enough reason to have both packages available in nixpkgs proper in my opinion. If you can also find more users (specifically NixOS & nixpkgs users) who prefer PolyMC and are willing to share why here then it would also help your case.

Ely.by support, Prism refuses to support it and a fork was made for it called PollyMC (two Ls), that fork is now actually unmaintained while PolyMC (the package we are talking about here, one L) added it as a feature a few months later.

As others have mentioned before, Prismlauncher is far more active than PolyMC (just going off surface level GitHub metrics alone, comparing the two side by side is a night and day difference). My main point here is if you really like a feature that PolyMC has, why not open up the issue with the Prismlauncher maintainers so those changes could benefit everyone.

As I said, Prism actively refuses to add this feature

PolyMC maintainers, to my knowledge, have not apologized/owned up to how their removal of the code of conduct has hurt users and seem to brush it under the rug. Instead they lie by omission and claim that they were the victims by rogue team members (and seemingly don't bother with providing any sort of proof or rebuttal). Re-including PolyMC in nixpkgs would mean considering this acceptable behavior that can be overlooked. If you could get PolyMC to revert their CoC removal, I'd personally be impressed.

No actual remaining users want it back

This isn't solely a "built by bigots" issue, it's a "built by liars" issue as well. They just happen to overlap a lot of the time.

As this nixpkgs contributor said over two years ago

I totally get your point, but I don't see a contradiction to what I said. And this is not a question of security or safety, but one about trust.

I trust Lenny every day by using PolyMC while using my multiple Minecraft accounts that accumulate to a value over $1000, including an account with a Minecon cape worth several hundred dollars by itself

[MisileLab]

@0n is there evidence that prismlauncher refuses to support ely.by?

[0n]

@0n is there evidence that prismlauncher refuses to support ely.by?

PrismLauncher/PrismLauncher#543

They refuse to add the feature that allows for alternative authentication servers, Ely.by is simply the most popular one

[hustlerone]

Just want to append to this: the maintainers of PolyMC already have instructions for using PolyMC's nix derivation with and without flakes (https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/develop/nix/NIX.md). They also provide an AppImage and a Flathub port as well. If you really need PolyMC then you have many ways of getting it without needing to rely on nixpkgs.

Why have anything on nixpkgs?