Why does most software outside the software manager come in tarballs and source rather than .deb?

[borg101]

Why do seemingly so few developers put out .deb packages? Every cool piece of software I think I would like is either tarballs or source. Inevitably I'll miss dependencies, then I have to hunt for them, then I'll install them, then I'll compile and low and behold, there were errors compiling. I'll try to solve them, but I usually just end up giving up due to lack of time.

Is there a reason that so many developers don't put stuff in neat packages that can just be clicked and installed? The only one I can think of is because there's so many different package management systems out there, which I guess its valid. Its just frustrating to a "newish" user like myself. I don't mind putting in the work, doing stuff in terminal, but debugging takes time that I don't always have a lot of.

I recently found a cool website called "removed" and its supposed to have compiled .deb packages of some of the more highlighted software available for Linux. Unfortunately, the first 3 things I tried "couldn't be found" on the server.

[xenopeek]

Creating a .deb package isn't trivial. Takes time to learn how to do and it takes time to do. If the developer isn't using a Debian based distro it would put even more of a demand on their time. This is where the community of users can step in. It's not for nothing that on many projects you see users from different Linux/BSD distros helping the developer out by contributing packaging for their distro.

As for .deb packaging, have a look at the new maintainer's guide from Debian https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/. Or the wiki https://wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian entry.

The Debian Administrator's Handbook probably has a better introduction to packaging with a hands-on example https://debian-handbook.info/browse/sta ... ckage.html.

[sphyrth]

The only one I can think of is because there's so many different package management systems out there...

Yep. This is why I appreciate much of the work being put by the source packagers. Without them, everybody has to do it.

[xenopeek]

The only one I can think of is because there's so many different package management systems out there

I don't see that as a big issue. Close to half of the Linux distros are either .deb or .rpm based so supporting those two package formats goes a long way. From what I'd consider major mainstream distros you're only missing out Arch Linux based distros with that and as Arch Linux has a ports system it will shortly have a package anyway.

[MintBean]

The only one I can think of is because there's so many different package management systems out there

I don't see that as a big issue. Close to half of the Linux distros are either .deb or .rpm based so supporting those two package formats goes a long way. From what I'd consider major mainstream distros you're only missing out Arch Linux based distros with that and as Arch Linux has a ports system it will shortly have a package anyway.

Couldn't agree more; them problem is overstated. Also (and admittedly I don't know how good it is) there's a piece of software called 'Alien' that converts RPMs to debs, and no doubt something also exists to convert the other way.

[Pierre]

most of the times that I've tried out 'Alien',
- the Test Program didn't work too well in a Debian system like LinuxMint.
so, my general impression of 'Alien', is that it is a bit Flakey.

but, maybe I've got to try it out, a bit more,
& get a better handle on it.

[kc1di]

Couldn't agree more; them problem is overstated. Also (and admittedly I don't know how good it is) there's a piece of software called 'Alien' that converts RPMs to debs, and no doubt something also exists to convert the other way.

Alien can do it both ways convert .rpm to .deb or .deb to rpm. Used it many times.
there are other avenues available also. You should first check to see if anyone has already packaged the program in .deb and post it in a PPA. (Note be careful as PPA's are not checked by mint or ubuntu. Do a search for the program you want in search the debian package base and ubuntu's also. sometimes a package is made for debian that is not available in Mint. But install at your own risk not all packages are compatible.
installing with tgz or other compressed formats can be difficult. but also can be rewarding. When you do you'll appreciate the great difficulties that all most all Linux users faced in the 1990's before the era of .deb and .rpm package management systems were available. almost all programs had to be installed this way.

It's a learning curve but enjoy the process.
you could also list the programs you seeking on the forums and maybe someone has already done the work and can at least tell you the dependencies you'll need to install to get a clean build.

[revian]

Why do seemingly so few developers put out .deb packages? Every cool piece of software I think I would like is either tarballs or source. Inevitably I'll miss dependencies, then I have to hunt for them, then I'll install them, then I'll compile and low and behold, there were errors compiling. I'll try to solve them, but I usually just end up giving up due to lack of time.

Is there a reason that so many developers don't put stuff in neat packages that can just be clicked and installed? The only one I can think of is because there's so many different package management systems out there, which I guess its valid. Its just frustrating to a "newish" user like myself. I don't mind putting in the work, doing stuff in terminal, but debugging takes time that I don't always have a lot of.

I recently found a cool website called "removed" and its supposed to have compiled .deb packages of some of the more highlighted software available for Linux. Unfortunately, the first 3 things I tried "couldn't be found" on the server.

There are many advantages to having the sources, one of which I learned early on in my Linux journey.

Many software programs have switches that change their behavior. These switches are only available during compile time so users grab the code and manipulate the switches during the config phase in order for the program to behave in a certain way when it runs.

Then there are some folks who want the sources in order to audit the code to ensure that the program does what it says it will do.

There are many other reasons, but suffice it to say there are numerous advantages to having the sources. I began my linux journey in 2001 and .deb/.rpm packages weren't near as plentiful as they are now - I remember having to compile more than half of my preferred programs. Packaging wasn't as prevalent in the past and many developers simply haven't changed their habits to include packing software.

[MintBean]

There are many advantages to having the sources, one of which I learned early on in my Linux journey.

Besides which the open source GPL license enforces that the source code must be made publicly available.

[Portreve]

I remember playing around with a few different GNU+Linux distros back in the 1997-2001 era, and "dependency hell" was a real thing. OMG what a pain in the ass.

I wouldn't, personally, expect a software developer to necessarily distribute their software in any particular package management format. Obviously, they have to compile and install it on their own machine(s) for testing, debugging, etc. purposes, but once that's done, it seems to me it'd almost be better for distros to just pick up the source code from a tested and known-good version and compile it themselves as appropriate for their own distro and their distro's package management system, than for developers to have to put out several packaged versions of the same thing.

Generally, what I see in practice is like the top two or top three package management systems are represented for software download options direct from the creator, along with pre-compiled 32 bit and 64 bit versions. So, obviously, developers are doing what they can to make things easy on others.