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.
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>
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.