The responsibility to figure out the dependencies and packaging for distros, and then maintain those going forwards, should not be placed on the developer. If a developer wants to do that, then that’s fine - but if a developer just wants to provide source with solid build instructions, and then provide a flatpak, maybe an appimage, then that’s also perfectly fine.
In a sense, developers shouldn’t even be trusted to manage packaging for distributions - it’s usually not their area of expertise, maintainers of specific distributions will usually know better.
While I agree that developers (like myself) are not necessarily experts at packaging stuff, to conclude that it’s fine that a developer provides a flatpak is promoting shitty software.
Whether a software should run in a jail, or within user space is a decision that - for most use cases - should be made by the user.
There is absolutely no reason not to provide software as a tar.gz source code archive with a proper makefile & documentation of dependencies - or automake configuration if that’s preferred.
From that kind of delivery, any package maintainer can easily build a distro-package.
I think you’re actually agreeing with me here. I was disputing the claim that software should be made available in “a native package format”, and my counterpoint is that devs shouldn’t be packaging things for distros, and instead providing source code with build instructions, alongside whatever builds they can comfortably provide - primarily flatpak and appimage, in my example.
I don’t use flatpak, and I prefer to use packages with my distro’s package manager, but I definitely can’t expect every package to be available in that format. Flatpak and appimage, to my knowledge, are designed to be distro-agnostic and easily distributed by the software developer, so they’re probably the best options - flatpak better for long-term use, appimage usable for quickly trying out software or one-off utilities.
As for tar.gz, these days software tends to be made available on GitHub and similar platforms, where you can fetch the source from git by commit, and releases also have autogenerated source downloads. Makefiles/automake isn’t a reasonable expectation these days, with a plethora of languages and build toolchains, but good, clear instructions are definitely something to include.
Makefiles/automake isn’t a reasonable expectation these days, with a plethora of languages and build toolchains, but good, clear instructions are definitely something to include.
As for the Makefiles, I meant that for whatever build toolchain the project uses - because the rules to build a project are an essential part of the project, linking the source code into a working library or executable. Whether it is cmake, or gnu make, or whatever else there is - that’s not so important as long as those build toolchains are available cross platforms.
I think what is really missing in the open source world is a distribution-agnostic standard how to describe application dependencies so that package maintainers can auto-generate distro-packages with the distribution-specific dependencies based on that “dependencies” file.
Similar to debian dependencies
Depends: libstdc++6 (>= 10.2.1)
but in a way that identifies code modules, not packages, so that distributions that package software together differently will still be able to identy
findPackageFor( dependency )
I would really like to add this kind of info to my projects and have a tool that can auto-build a repo-package from those.
I think no one said it needs to be ON a distro’s repos. That’s a straw man.
A package should be available in a native package format in a way that doesn’t cause conflict with what’s in the official repo.
Wow, is this meme a really naive take that is contradicted by - oh god, everything. Can someone know about enterprise Linux and also be this naive?
The responsibility to figure out the dependencies and packaging for distros, and then maintain those going forwards, should not be placed on the developer. If a developer wants to do that, then that’s fine - but if a developer just wants to provide source with solid build instructions, and then provide a flatpak, maybe an appimage, then that’s also perfectly fine.
In a sense, developers shouldn’t even be trusted to manage packaging for distributions - it’s usually not their area of expertise, maintainers of specific distributions will usually know better.
While I agree that developers (like myself) are not necessarily experts at packaging stuff, to conclude that it’s fine that a developer provides a flatpak is promoting shitty software. Whether a software should run in a jail, or within user space is a decision that - for most use cases - should be made by the user.
There is absolutely no reason not to provide software as a tar.gz source code archive with a proper makefile & documentation of dependencies - or automake configuration if that’s preferred.
From that kind of delivery, any package maintainer can easily build a distro-package.
I think you’re actually agreeing with me here. I was disputing the claim that software should be made available in “a native package format”, and my counterpoint is that devs shouldn’t be packaging things for distros, and instead providing source code with build instructions, alongside whatever builds they can comfortably provide - primarily flatpak and appimage, in my example.
I don’t use flatpak, and I prefer to use packages with my distro’s package manager, but I definitely can’t expect every package to be available in that format. Flatpak and appimage, to my knowledge, are designed to be distro-agnostic and easily distributed by the software developer, so they’re probably the best options - flatpak better for long-term use, appimage usable for quickly trying out software or one-off utilities.
As for tar.gz, these days software tends to be made available on GitHub and similar platforms, where you can fetch the source from git by commit, and releases also have autogenerated source downloads. Makefiles/automake isn’t a reasonable expectation these days, with a plethora of languages and build toolchains, but good, clear instructions are definitely something to include.
As for the Makefiles, I meant that for whatever build toolchain the project uses - because the rules to build a project are an essential part of the project, linking the source code into a working library or executable. Whether it is cmake, or gnu make, or whatever else there is - that’s not so important as long as those build toolchains are available cross platforms.
I think what is really missing in the open source world is a distribution-agnostic standard how to describe application dependencies so that package maintainers can auto-generate distro-packages with the distribution-specific dependencies based on that “dependencies” file.
Similar to debian dependencies
Depends: libstdc++6 (>= 10.2.1)but in a way that identifies code modules, not packages, so that distributions that package software together differently will still be able to identyfindPackageFor( dependency )I would really like to add this kind of info to my projects and have a tool that can auto-build a repo-package from those.