4 ms·

I find it odd that packaging for a specific distro is an upstream effort. I never understood why upstream source should include Debian/Fedora-specific files. T

I find it odd that packaging for a specific distro is an upstream effort. I never understood why upstream source should include Debian/Fedora-specific files. The way that Arch Linux approaches packaging makes much more sense to me - a single bash-like PKGBUILD file that describes how the upstream source should be transformed into a package that the distro knows how to deal with.

gspr 6y ago
> I find it odd that packaging for a specific distro is an upstream effort. I never understood why upstream source should include Debian/Fedora-specific files. This is generally frowned-upon in Debian too. Upstream's effort are nearly always wrong from the distribution's point of view, and extra busywork has to be done to get rid of upstream's attempt.
- kelnos 6y ago
  On the flip side, I definitely do appreciate when upstream includes a debian directory, as that means I can easily self-build my own package with the latest source, even if I'm on Debian stable or whatever and don't expect and update or backport.
  - viccuad 6y ago
    That's also the case if there's an official Debian package; you can build whatever package from whatever distribution (you may be missing dependencies, but it would be the same with an upstream debian directory). If one is going to contribute a debian directory, maybe it's more efficient to contribute it to Debian directly. Note also that making "a" .deb package is not the same as making an official Debian package that satisfies the Debian Policy and passes the automated linters (lintian, piuparts, autopkgtest, etc). The second will have the minimum quality that Debian expects.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      > That's also the case if there's an official Debian package; you can build whatever package from whatever distribution Yes, I can `apt source foo` and then spend annoying painstaking time dumping in the new version of the upstream source, fixing any weirdness with the build system, updating dependencies, etc. I've done this every now and then and I hate doing it. It doesn't help that Debian's packaging tools have worse UX than git, inscrutable errors, and nearly nonexistent detailed documentation. In contrast, if upstream has its own debian directory checked into their source repo, I can usually expect it to work; all I'll need is a `sudo apt build dep . && dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us` and it should build without any futzing on my part. And if an even newer version later ends up in the official Debian repository, it'll get seamlessly updated with no further work on my part. (Meanwhile I also appreciate being able to grab upstream Linux kernel source, copy in my local config, and run `make deb-pkg` in its root to get a perfectly-functioning, updated kernel that installs things to the right places and properly integrates with dkms and update-initramfs. Even just rebuilding Debian's shipped kernel is usually not that easy.) > Note also that making "a" .deb package is not the same as making an official Debian package that satisfies the Debian Policy and passes the automated linters (lintian, piuparts, autopkgtest, etc). The second will have the minimum quality that Debian expects. I frankly do not care about that one bit. All I want is something that I can trivially build, installs on and integrates (reasonably) well with my system, will get upgraded automatically if a newer version shows up in an official Debian repo, and I can easily remove with `apt purge foo`. A debian directory checked into the upstream ticks all those boxes. Trying to shoehorn newer upstream source into an existing Debian-maintained debian directory usually very much does not. If your experience differs, all the more power to you, but this has been my experience using Debian for many years now.
- jeltz 6y ago
  Maybe the Debian project frowns upon them but as an end user I love them.
gravitas 6y ago
Arch PKGBUILD packaging is basically identical in design to RPM packaging, and can contain more than just s single build script (patches, pre/post scriplets in another file, etc.). Arch packaging feels familiar and "normal" if you're coming from any RPM based distro, including the SUSE family. It is the DEB format which is generally unlike most others in architecture and design, you cannot toss "Fedora/Ubuntu" into the phrase and be honest, they are quite different and have different design goals.
godelski 6y ago
For those kinda newish to linux, one thing I learned when I didn't have a deb/rpm file is to go look at the arch aur pkgbuild as a guideline of how to build the packages from source. Arch has surprisingly been a good guide for general linux questions.

gspr 6y ago

> I find it odd that packaging for a specific distro is an upstream effort. I never understood why upstream source should include Debian/Fedora-specific files. This is generally frowned-upon in Debian too. Upstream's effort are nearly always wrong from the distribution's point of view, and extra busywork has to be done to get rid of upstream's attempt.

kelnos 6y ago
On the flip side, I definitely do appreciate when upstream includes a debian directory, as that means I can easily self-build my own package with the latest source, even if I'm on Debian stable or whatever and don't expect and update or backport.
- viccuad 6y ago
  That's also the case if there's an official Debian package; you can build whatever package from whatever distribution (you may be missing dependencies, but it would be the same with an upstream debian directory). If one is going to contribute a debian directory, maybe it's more efficient to contribute it to Debian directly. Note also that making "a" .deb package is not the same as making an official Debian package that satisfies the Debian Policy and passes the automated linters (lintian, piuparts, autopkgtest, etc). The second will have the minimum quality that Debian expects.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    > That's also the case if there's an official Debian package; you can build whatever package from whatever distribution Yes, I can `apt source foo` and then spend annoying painstaking time dumping in the new version of the upstream source, fixing any weirdness with the build system, updating dependencies, etc. I've done this every now and then and I hate doing it. It doesn't help that Debian's packaging tools have worse UX than git, inscrutable errors, and nearly nonexistent detailed documentation. In contrast, if upstream has its own debian directory checked into their source repo, I can usually expect it to work; all I'll need is a `sudo apt build dep . && dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us` and it should build without any futzing on my part. And if an even newer version later ends up in the official Debian repository, it'll get seamlessly updated with no further work on my part. (Meanwhile I also appreciate being able to grab upstream Linux kernel source, copy in my local config, and run `make deb-pkg` in its root to get a perfectly-functioning, updated kernel that installs things to the right places and properly integrates with dkms and update-initramfs. Even just rebuilding Debian's shipped kernel is usually not that easy.) > Note also that making "a" .deb package is not the same as making an official Debian package that satisfies the Debian Policy and passes the automated linters (lintian, piuparts, autopkgtest, etc). The second will have the minimum quality that Debian expects. I frankly do not care about that one bit. All I want is something that I can trivially build, installs on and integrates (reasonably) well with my system, will get upgraded automatically if a newer version shows up in an official Debian repo, and I can easily remove with `apt purge foo`. A debian directory checked into the upstream ticks all those boxes. Trying to shoehorn newer upstream source into an existing Debian-maintained debian directory usually very much does not. If your experience differs, all the more power to you, but this has been my experience using Debian for many years now.
jeltz 6y ago
Maybe the Debian project frowns upon them but as an end user I love them.

gravitas 6y ago

Arch PKGBUILD packaging is basically identical in design to RPM packaging, and can contain more than just s single build script (patches, pre/post scriplets in another file, etc.). Arch packaging feels familiar and "normal" if you're coming from any RPM based distro, including the SUSE family. It is the DEB format which is generally unlike most others in architecture and design, you cannot toss "Fedora/Ubuntu" into the phrase and be honest, they are quite different and have different design goals.

godelski 6y ago

For those kinda newish to linux, one thing I learned when I didn't have a deb/rpm file is to go look at the arch aur pkgbuild as a guideline of how to build the packages from source. Arch has surprisingly been a good guide for general linux questions.