This article records experiences with packaging an application for many distributions and shows areas in which packagers, Linux distributions, and developers can improve coordination for better and easier distribution. The author looks at communication problems, packaging errors, package dependencies, menu entries, and bug tracking systems.
Lessons in Packaging Linux Applications
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
There are missing sections about Fink and Windos.
This article surprises me not in the slightest. All these problems are symptoms of the fact that the developers are not the people who package the software. It’s common to find packages that:
a) Are out of date
b) Install the program wrong
c) Miss bits (billy noted documentation)
d) Have incorrect metadata
e) Duplicate work
f) are incompatible with other packages of the same software
It makes just as little sense for packaging to be separate from development as documentation or Q&A is. They are all components of the same product, so it makes sense to have the same team do them all.
“It makes just as little sense for packaging to be separate from development as documentation or Q&A is.”
Is it also without sense that the people who produce steering wheels don’t also assemble the whole cars?
I am developer. Should I install Red Hat or ALT Linux just to make packages for these systems? Forget it.
And you wold like to have documentation not seperate from development. Do you really think that every developer is an adept technical writer? Do you think that someone who could build a steering wheel is adept in building brake systems?
Devision of work is not a luxury but a necessety. This also holds true in software development.
Does your steering wheel fit your car? The reason it does is because it was spec’d out for that paticular auto. Auto makers are master packagers. The reason is because they have strick specs for their product. The steering wheel maker doesn’t make the wheel and then expect the auto makers to adapt.
Does the packager of a piece of software specify to the developer what is expected to make that program work in the place the packager is expecting to apply it to?
I think you misunderstood him…
I am developer. Should I install Red Hat or ALT Linux just to make packages for these systems? Forget it.
That’s the big problem Mike is working on solving with autopackage.
And you wold like to have documentation not seperate from development.
No, it ISN’T separate from development already (I think his point was that packaging should be tied as much to developing as writing documentation is). Of course it’s not always the same people who write the code and documentation (just like it doesn’t have to be the programmer who packages the software), but it’s usually the same development team which provides the sourcecode and the documentation (and hopefully soon the binary packages).
>> Devision of work is not a luxury but a necessety. This also holds true in software development.
Well, a bit offtopic, but I’d applaud the first OSS development theme for dividing really everything into things that people can do best, like UI design for example..
UI design is nearly always done by the developers themselves in the OSS world, and that’s the reason why we’re seeing those bad looking/geeky and/or standard menubar/toolbar/statusbar-combo UIs everywhere.
(even if it doesn’t fit the program)
(and yes, UI design is a job on itself – a good UI isn’t built in 1 day)
UI design is nearly always done by the developers themselves in the OSS world
Not necessarily anymore! There are plenty of GNOME projects already which “outsource” the UI design to experts and yes, there is a UI team within GNOME. At the very least, most developers of new GNOME applications come to those people and ask for advice or a review. Sometimes it’s the other way around, with UI experts coming to the projects and helping them to improve the UI.
Still, everything is happening within the same project/development team and the maintainer is making sure that everything works together in the best possible way.
Yes, new Gnome apps that conform to the HIG are a pleasure to work with. Now all we need to do is get people to use autopackage…
In order for Linux to go anywhere on the desktop, the applications will have to improve in quality and ease of installation. That is probably one of the biggest problems is dependencies, it is the worst part. It causes problems, and crashes in the operating system.
I myself, do not see Linux having applications like Windows does but who know what the future holds. The nice thing with Windows is that the installation of programs is point and click. This is where Linux needs the most work, most programs installed in Linux are still from the command line. If you take a person who has never used a computer will not use it then. They need to start with the basics first, you have to crawl before you can walk. Maybe later on, they will want more advanced system stuff.