Slashdot Mirror
Getting Software Added to Unix Distributions?
suso asks: "I've been working on a set of programs called num-utils that I would eventually like to be considered for inclusion in some of the many free Un*x distributions (on the install CDs, etc). So my question is, how does one put their applications on the track to be included in the main distribution of Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, *BSD, and so on? Is this just something that is up to the maintainers or are there submission forms of some kind?"
For starters, you could try looking for feedback forms on the distributions' web sites, such as these forms for SuSE. Forms like these are often intended to bring suggestions to the attention of the distribution developers.
I think Gnu should help. Try submitting on their site. If you code according to their guidelines, and if your software is useful enough they will include it in some package (something like what binutils is). :)
Your program will then automatically get into *all* distros
Nandz.
The distro maintainers make these decisions based on popularity and dependency. Why include software nobody ever uses?
The larger distributions will not carry your tool until it's become widely adopted by the Linux community - be thankful, otherwise RedHat 9 would require a DVD or two, instead of (just!) 3 CDs...
These utilities you have here, while useful, will probably not see much user adoption. However they would be very useful in shell scripting. If a more mainstream user application requires your utilities to function, the distro will be forced into including your stuff - as a dependency.
$100,000 buys you 10 minutes of face-to-face time with Dubya and I bet a similar "donation" would get you some time with the guys at Red Hat, SuSe, etc.
But, of course, that's not what you wanted to hear. I'd check out their FAQs, ask questions in their relevant forums, usenet groups, etc. I'd imagine that each distribution has its own criteria for inclusion so your approach to one vendor might have to be completely different to your approach with another.
Whatever you do, bear in mind two (slightly paradoxical) things:
1. They probably get asked to include lots of software, some good, some bad and some downright ugly.
I know of one major magazine that was sent an application for inclusion on its cover disk that calculated sales taxes for you - by taking the figure you gave it and multiplying by the relevant amount. That's the chaff. You need to be the wheat. So make sure that your software is truly worth inclusion (Does anybody already have a similar offering in their distribution? How does yours differentiate itself? How is it superior?) before you start investing serious time and effort into promoting it.
Also, remember that there will be great pressure, both internal and external, for vendors to keep their distributions free of bloat. Even if your software is unique, does it really offer something that a significant proportion of the target audience will want and use? You could develop the best doll's house design software for Linux ever but if nobody wants to design doll's houses on their Linux machines then you're screwed.
2. If you really do have a product worthy of inclusion then persevere.
Once you find the distributions' relevant contacts, harrass and hassle them about it until you get some sort of feedback. If they say 'yes' that's great, but if they say 'no' ask why it's a not a go.
But remember, although it might be their jobs to deal with new submissions, it isn't their jobs to deal with crap. Don't be offensive, advesarial or overly aggressive and don't become a stalker (leaving two voicemails a day is a no-no) or the only answer you'll ever get is 'no'.
Good luck.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Or, you could file an RFP (Request For Package). See instructions.
The people that tend to do packaging are not likely to be influenced by you pestering their Inboxes, or filling out forms, or posting to forums, etc. Instead, ensure that your program meets the following requirements, and you should have no problems.
- It should fulfill a genuine need. If you're aiming for wide distribution you can't expect to achieve it with a something that's only relevent to a few people or in a few circumstances. You should also have some sort of document that shows how someone would save time or accomplish new things with this tool.
- It should be small yet robust, minimalistic yet powerful. I don't think anyone would consider adding a tool to a default install that is either too large for the features it offers, or two pedestrian in the type of features that it offers.
- It should be packaged well. Ideally it should compile and install in the proper locations out-of-the-box on a variety of systems. Make sure that it uses well-known methods, such as autotools (i.e. "./configure --prefix=/usr/local") or some other well-know "make; make install" type of setup.
- It should be well documented. At the very least you should have full manpages that your install script puts in the right place. Also consider man2html output on a web site, an possibly texinfo for the purists. You can't expect to get away with "just run --help and figure it out" or "look in the README."
- It should be licensed sanely, and should have reasonable dependencies. No one like a bizarro license, and no one likes a tool that takes sixteen different libraries of particular versions to compile.
- It looks like you're trying to get these tools standardized so that they could be relied upon for scripting... this will always be very hard to accomplish, but you might look into getting them merged with some popular packages, i.e. 'fileutils'. If there's a particular program that they are well-suited to being used with (like awk or something) then see about getting them added, perhaps in a "contrib" dir, to a project like that.
Frankly, though, your post was a little worrysome... in the sense that it almost seems like you're trying to get everyone to use these tools because they're there, not for some intrinsic reason. That just won't work, they have to do something really well or make it much easier to do some other task, etc.... You can get the word out and announce to various interested parties, but you will never be able to force anyone to do anything. In other words, view the situation as one of wanting to make the best programs you can, and if they receive universal support that's icing on the cake.
Un*x is traditional. AT&T can't sue you for trademark infringement if you don't say the whole word.
*nix is much newer (circa mid-90s, rather than the late 80s Un*x started in) and is actually much less accurate. Un*x refers to Unix(tm), I've heard *nix refer to just about anything POSIX. Why don't more people refer to things by the standards they're actually judging Un*x-a-like systems?
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Once upon a time I wanted an MP3 streaming server, none of the ones I looked at did what I wanted. So I did the standard thing and designed my own.
After releasing my first version to freshmeat I had about five subscribers to the project.
These subscribers gave me patches, feedback, and encouragement.
Doing a websearch for the project name I discovered by accident that the the package made it into Gentoo, and similarly Netbsd without any feedback or involvement from myself!
The next step was my becoming a Debian Developer so that I could upload it there - and not worry about other people doing a bad job without me. (Not a real concern; I had wanted to join Debian for some time anyway).
Now life is good - I've no idea if it's in RedHat because I've not touched it for years, but SuSE include it the *BSD's and Gentoo cover it, and Debian gets the latest versions all the time.
Freshmeat lists 120+ subscribers to the project, and it's probably on the verge of becoming an official GNU package sometime soon.
If you use it and like it buy something nice? </ObPlug>
Drop the GPL. Your software is much more useful and far more likely to be included in non-Linux systems if the license isn't tainted
Which systems are you referring to? I know the BSDs avoids GPLed code for drivers and core programs, but user packages is a different story. And OSX includes GPLed code. *BSD, All GNU/Linux, and OS X, I'd say that the GPL can get you into plenty of OSes.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
This seems to be easily misunderstood, probably especially by Linux users where no distinction between base system and third-party apps exists (or in a less visible way, at least).
It did indeed mean that some tools in the base had to be reimplemented, either in C or as shell scripts. Obviously the majority of developers decided that this was less pain than having to keep one version of perl around even when users want a newer one, because you could break their systems otherwise, to have to check various important parts of the systems when you integrate an updated perl etc. The result of all this is that having an up-to-date perl is just one "portinstall perl" away, the system is more stable and modular, and, indeed, that trivial perl utilities like those in the article are unlikely to become base components. Big deal.Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
First off, we dislike having gpl code in the base system, but we do have gpl stuff (but always a bsd fall back) for things like tar, gcc, dialog, rcs, sort, gzip, and just a few others. We keep our /bin and /sbin clean of the gpl. We typically think that awk or perl is capable of this sort of thing, and to get a program like this into the base system requires at the very least a commit bit in the cvs tree, or approval form the core team, or membership to the core team (yeah right). Since a text-processing, or rather a number processing, program is considered to be strictly useless to a base system's functionality, it would most certainly be religated to the ports tree. Don't kid yourself, you might think your software is the best thing under the sun since sliced bread, but to be so bold as to think it needs to be included in the base of any Unix-like-system is a pipe dream.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.