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?"

58 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Linux is not Unix by Flounder · · Score: 4, Funny

    unless, of course, SCO wins their lawsuit.

    --

    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

    1. Re:Linux is not Unix by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    2. Re:Linux is not Unix by MesiahTaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. Gnu's Not Unix.

      --
      Are you an open source warrior?
    3. Re:Linux is not Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Did I just notice a recursive acronym here?
      Linux Is Not UniX

      Prepare to be modded down.

  2. Usefulness and Popularity by turgid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your programs are genuinely useful and well-written, they will build up a user base over time. Eventually they will become viewed as worth putting in a distribution.

  3. Write a text editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Write another text editor app, then it will be sure to be included in the distro. Distros dont have enough text editors in them.

  4. Simple by sporty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. port it to as many systems as possible, even non-targert systems. possibly AIX, old Digital Unix.. you name it.

    2. get the werd out. If people know about your package, it could solve a problem somewhere that would get it installed.

    3. support it. if you support it, people will keep using it. even if it is initially crappy, you'll get bug fixes and advice.

    4. package it. no one more than me.. 'cept for those that hate it more than me, hate doing custom compiles on a system that doesn't have /usr/ports or emerge.

    Then you live on w/ your life. If your software is good and fulfills a need, you'll see it get put in.

    Then you can go onto 5. Profit. or ????. YMMV

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    1. Re:Simple by trikberg · · Score: 4, Funny

      2. get the werd out. If people know about your package, it could solve a problem somewhere that would get it installed.

      Somehow I get a feeling that he has that one covered. :)

      --
      This post is free (as in cheese in a mousetrap).
  5. Make noiseb about it by makapuf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to sound flamebait, but you're quite right in doing it : giving it the maximum visibility (for example by posting a link to it on a popular news discussion site) will make a few people notice it exists.

    Now, the main question is does it do ogg ?

    1. Re:Make noiseb about it by DrWhizBang · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now, the main question is does it do ogg ?

      It doesn't matter about ogg. Once it reads mail, then it is feature complete.

      --
      Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
    2. Re:Make noiseb about it by sukottoX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i wouldn't be surprised to find your utilities included in the next version of some big distro after this nice self-slashdotting. this probably was the most effective way to get your programs noticed!

  6. Feedback forms by Novus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Step-wise procedure... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Write software.
    2. Take out a coyright in your name.
    3. Apply GPL notices to code.
    4. Publish code via ftp.
    5. Send code to Source Forge and Freshmeat.

    Very difficult?

    -

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Step-wise procedure... by acidtripp101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I don't see your point here. The GPL liscence only contradicts the BSD liscence if they are in the same binary (ie kernel code). The BSDs don't have to steer clear of the GNU Compiler Collection because gcc isn't part of the kernel.
      I honestly don't think anyone would be THAT much of a zealot about their liscences, but then again..

      --
      Not Free(as in beer). Free(as in "I'm free to beat you over the head for being a dumbass")
  8. Publish first to website. by marcovje · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Two ways:

    How we did it (fpc, a pascal compiler)
    - First the app was published on our site only, and gained momentum and peer review. This stage took several years.
    - for the distributions where ordinary users can submit packages (*BSD ports and Debian) somebody
    will do a port in time. You could do that yourself of course and speed up the process.
    - After a time the commercial ones pick it up if it is really good. You can lobby for that too, but maintainers might also contact you if you have critical mass.
    I found SUSE always the most responsive. RedHat is the only major that doesn't include it, and has been promising it for the next major version since 6.x times.

    About SUSE there is a nice anecdote. I mailed our contact that a new version was out, and got a reply back that the final ISO had already been made. Two days later I got a mail back that they had to update a critical bug, and also updated our package to the newer version (which was a fixes only release btw)

    The second way is to try to submit your packages to the FSF, so not just GPL it, but really get in bed with the FSF
    FSF stuff more readily gets into distro's than third party projects. Of course again, they will only be really interested if your work is phenomenal.

    1. Re:Publish first to website. by hanwen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The second way is to try to submit your packages to the FSF, so not just GPL it, but really get in bed with the FSF. FSF stuff more readily gets into distro's than third party projects. Of course again, they will only be really interested if your work is phenomenal.


      That is not true. The GNU project (the FSF doesn't do this directly, the FSF is the foundation that sponsors GNU) will take on any software, as long as it is free, conforms to the GNU coding standards, and is not yet covered by other GNU packages.


      Savannah (the GNU equivalent of Sourceforge) also carries a lot of near-dead projects.

      --

      Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond

    2. Re:Publish first to website. by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Savannah (the GNU equivalent of Sourceforge) also carries a lot of near-dead projects.

      Savannah, where GNUs go to die...?

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    3. Re:Publish first to website. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's pretty much how it works. Let me try to add how it worked for GStreamer, the project I contribute to.

      1. Write software that people need.
        This is the most important step. You have to have a piece of software that has value for people (and therefore for a distribution). It may be software that is missing, it may be that it does something better than others.
      2. Wait for those people to show up.
        Release your software, work on it. Since it's good people that need it will show up and use it. Open source software gains speed by word of mouth. Eventually someone will package it for Debian and someone will do Redhat packages for your local website or maybe even for freshrpms.
      3. Work with the people that showed up.
        This is a rather important step where some projects fail miserably: Everybody that shows up and says something about your project is a contributor. Take him serious. Even if he only bitches about missing or non-working things. There are probably quite a few valuable feature suggestions and bugs you didn't know about inside his hate mails.
        As an added bonus, listening to your users gives you more publicity and word of mouth for free.
      4. Wait until people want your software included.
        The day will come when someone - it's probably better if it's someone else - suggests you for inclusion in a package. There will probably be quite some other suggestions. There'll definitely be one other suggestion: Don't include anything. You'll have to prove you're worth the work for the distributor. Maybe they won't even inform you about the inclusion of your package.

      From the GStreamer point of view the big breakthrough was the inclusion into GNOME as the "official" media framework. For the first releases (2.0 and 2.2 I think) GStreamer was only used by the sound recorder. They wanted to see if we are good enough. Since we lived up to their expectations they'll now include a media player based on GStreamer in their next release.

      This inclusion into GNOME made other distributions aware of us and GStreamer is now included in Redhat 9 and I think Mandrake 9.1, too.
      I have to say though that I had to find out about that myself since I'm not a Redhat user and they didn't come to tell me. They didn't even ask questions which I would have expected distros to do when they want to include a package.

      Inclusion into a distribution for me is just "Hey, I didn't know I was in!"

    4. Re:Publish first to website. by hanwen · · Score: 2, Informative
      You don't need their coding standards to GPL something, but if they are to take "responsibility" for it and maintain it, then they want you to follow their coding guidelines.

      The GNU project does not maintain any contributed software. The FSF does take responsibility for suing GPL offenders, but that requires you to sign over your code to the FSF (nothing scary, they grant you a no-strings attached license back.)

      As for the coding standards: they are quite strict in enforcing those, in particular the clause that a GNU program cannot link or refer to non-free software. For example, Ghostscript was recently taken out of GNU, due to disagreements over the linking to the non-free Aladdin ghostscript.

      --

      Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond

  9. Reputation + Packaging by rf0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Half of it is about reputation and having a good following. The other thing that helps is to supply packages for each distro. i.e rpm for redhat, deb for debian. For others like FreeBSD which have the ports tree see if you can get your files commited

    HTh

    Rus

  10. GNU? by metalmaniac1759 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. Is your app a virus by any chance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If so it will add itself eventually.

  12. Get eyeballs.. by Graelin · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  13. Make your own binary packages by Cee · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you should make your own binary packages, or get someone else to do it for you (for the distros/architectures you don't have access to). I've seen you already have rpm's on your site, so that's a good start.
    This way you (or someone you know) can be an inofficial maintainer for your package. When your software becomes popular enough, it may eventually be included with the major distributions.
    So my advice is basically: patience =)

  14. Simply send it to SCO by Advocadus+Diaboli · · Score: 5, Funny

    They will take care of it and will find evidences that your code is already illegally included in all major distributions, the kernel and the rest of the world. And they will offer a license for using it.

  15. Money talks but here's some free advice... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Informative

    $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
  16. On Perl and command-line utilities by juahonen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your mathematical utilities would be more useful if you had programmed them in C. Your choice of language will limit their adoption. Basically because using Perl scripts is not as fast as calling compiled C programs. This fact alone will make people reductant of using your utils in their code.

    Because FreeBSD doesn't ship Perl as standard part of their distribution anymore, it'll be likely that your utils will not get included in any BSD software because it would pull in Perl. It may be a reason for Linux distributions too for not using your num-utils. Debian may be the only distribution which relies on Perl.

    1. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by BJH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other thing is that several of the utilities (or at least 90% of their functionality) can be implemented in 1-2 lines of sh or awk.

      Really, if you're shooting to be included in a distribution, make it for something worthwhile.

    2. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by 73939133 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your mathematical utilities would be more useful if you had programmed them in C. Your choice of language will limit their adoption. Basically because using Perl scripts is not as fast as calling compiled C programs.

      I have actually written a lot of this kind of code, working with huge datasets, and you are simply wrong. The performance of these kinds of utilities is dominated by I/O, not CPU. Furthermore, even the CPU-intensive parts of these utilities (conversions, etc.) are implemented in highly optimized C code inside Perl.

      Because FreeBSD doesn't ship Perl as standard part of their distribution anymore, it'll be likely that your utils will not get included in any BSD software because it would pull in Perl.

      I think Perl is a pretty awful language, but not including it in FreeBSD strikes me as a stupid decision. Perl is useful and works well across many systems. It's also not particularly big. If FreeBSD doesn't include Perl in the standard install, then FreeBSD has a problem, not people who write scripts in Perl.

      What is BSD doing instead? Implementing all utilities in C? Gee, that's bright: let's create lots of unnecessary work for ourselves, increase maintenance hassles, make it really difficult to use good algorithms, make sure that there are plenty of opportunities for pointer bugs. That's negative progress: operating systems need less C programming, not more.

    3. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by sumirati · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because FreeBSD doesn't ship Perl as standard part of their distribution anymore, it'll be likely that your utils will not get included in any BSD software because it would pull in Perl. It may be a reason for Linux distributions too for not using your num-utils. Debian may be the only distribution which relies on Perl.

      Yes, Perl is no longer a part of the base FreeBSD installation (as long as for 5.x). It is a port instead - like UUCP and some others. And Perl is ALWAYS installed by DEFAULT!

      Please, check your facts before posting ...
      ... ah, but this IS slashdot, or?

    4. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by groomed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The benefits of scripting over languages such as C are grossly overrated.

      C requires painstaking attention to detail, but there is a large number of tools to check C programs for common mistakes such as memory allocation errors and pointer bugs. Scripting languages generally do not have an equally powerful toolset to check for runtime problems such as the typing and dependency errors which may occur when (components of) the scripting runtime are upgraded.

      Scripts are fragile. Truly the last thing operating systems need is more fragility.

      By adhering strictly to a formalized development process which includes unit tests as well as rigorous system tests it is possible to overcome some of this fragility, but then you also lose many of the benefits that scripting is supposed to provide, viz. rapid development and turnaround.

      God only knows why colleges keep churning out students who insist that mashed potatoes are the most flexible material to build a bookshelf...

    5. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by __past__ · · Score: 4, Informative
      FreeBSDs decision to move Perl from the base system to the ports tree was because it was easier to handle that way, both for developers and users. It was not about not supporting it anymore. In fact, it is supported quite well, including automatic integration of CPAN packages with the package management utils etc.

      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.
    6. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      C requires painstaking attention to detail, but there is a large number of tools to check C programs for common mistakes such as memory allocation errors and pointer bugs.

      First, these programs cannot find all or even most such errors. Second, these programs cannot help you with the fundamental problem that you have written more code and on average the number of bugs is proportional to the amount of code.

      Scripting languages generally do not have an equally powerful toolset to check for runtime problems such as the typing and dependency errors which may occur when (components of) the scripting runtime are upgraded.

      C programs have also been known to break with components of the underlying runtime are upgraded. Type checking tools only catch the most obvious and blatant problems that would have been caught with unit testing anyhow. Subtle problems are as hard to find in either case except that when the script fails it typically gives a very clear traceback whereas the C may merely corrupt memory and then crash at an arbitrary time later. The behaviour of the script is determinstic but the behaviour of the C program could depends on what random crap happened to be in a memory location that you accidentally dereferenced.

      Scripts are fragile.

      I'm sorry, this is just false. Slashdot is widely acknowledged to be written in piss-poor Perl and is no more fragile than sites written in Java and is probably more reliable than those few sites written in C. Yahoo and Amazon are also substantially written in script (PHP and Perl respectively). If scripts are robust enough for them, they are robust enough for me. But then again, some people still claim assembly and FORTRAN are the one try way of writing large-scale software. Every layer will have adherents long past the time when they should have moved on to take advantage of the fruits of Moore's law.

      Truly the last thing operating systems need is more fragility.

      He's adding a few tools for doing numerical computations. This is hardly a core part of the operating system kernel.

      By adhering strictly to a formalized development process which includes unit tests as well as rigorous system tests it is possible to overcome some of this fragility, but then you also lose many of the benefits that scripting is supposed to provide, viz. rapid development and turnaround.

      Let me see if I've got this right. I can spend five days scripting plus five days testing or ten days coding in C and zero days testing. Which code will be more fragile? Or lets try this this way: five days scripting plus five days testing versus ten days coding and five days testing. Seems like I'm still geting "rapid development and turnaround". It is totally, empirically false to say that C-coded programs require less testing than scripts. In general they require more because there is just more code to test.

      I am not going to claim that scirpts are always better than C code (and we've hardly touched on middle grounds like Java, C#, Eiffel etc.). But I strongly dispute the assertion that scripted code is in general more fragile than C code or requires more testing. The secret to reliable software is testing, testing and testing. Programming language is a distant second place but even there, C tends towards the less reliable side of the spectrum. Of course with proper testing you can make rock-solid C code just as you can make rock-solid code in any language.

    7. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by Arandir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Perl is a pretty awful language, but not including it in FreeBSD strikes me as a stupid decision.

      It is included in FreeBSD, and it is installed by default, it's just not a part of the base system. The same situation occurs with XFree86. The base system is the operating system and environment. Stuff that isn't the OS, or isn't expected to be included with the OS, shouldn't be there. Bash isn't there. Emacs isn't there. Why should Perl be there? If you've ever used Slackware, you could consider the base system to be the "A" distribution, and Slackware doesn't have Perl in the "A" distribution. So far I've seen no one argue that it should be there.

      What is BSD doing instead? Implementing all utilities in C? Gee, that's bright: let's create lots of unnecessary work for ourselves

      Actually, it's making things a heck of a lot easier for the user. In the olden days (a few months ago) you used the Perl version that was in the base system. It was very difficult to use a new version. You were stuck with the default. There were several pieces of software that I was never able to use simply because I was unable to update my Perl. But the situation now is that I can use any version of Perl I want. Upgrading is simple and hassle free.

      Rewriting a *few* Perl scripts in C and bourne was a good thing. These are lowest-common-denominator languages, and should be used whenever possible for low level system software (which is not to say that they are necessarily appropriate for higher level software).

      In short, you will see absolutely zero drawbacks in FreeBSD if you are a Perl developers. Zero. But you will see several advantages to it not being in the base system.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    8. Re:On Perl and command-line utilities by 73939133 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's 100 megs of compiled code, not C.

      That's obviously what I'm referring to: it's a 100M of binary code corresponding probably to millions of lines of messy C source code. And the notion that a 100M binary install is "lean" is itself absurd.

      Also, the overhead of an interpreted language is inappropriate for the kind of command that's expected to be ran often and not take up too much time (like most of the applications found in various toolchains on unix)

      That's silly: most of the stuff in a base OS install either is not performance critical at all, or it is I/O bound. You could rewrite init, cron, ps, sendmail, ftpd, apcid, lpd, rpc.mountd, xinit, and almost all other of the programs in a base install in an interpreted language, and system performance would probably improve (because of much better VM sharing) and install size would decrease.

      C is used extensively throughout the base operating system, in nearly all applications it's faster, it's proven over the course of decades, and it's very widely understood. Why switch to perl?

      The notion that "C [...] is faster" is ridiculous; most C programs are probably a lot slower than they would be if an equivalent amount of time had been spent writing them in a decent high-level language because C makes it so much work to build complex data structures or try different implementations and because C debugging and testing takes so much time compared to high-level languages. The BSD and Linux kernels, as well as many of those "efficient" C programs you area thinking of are full of linear search over potentially large data structures because it's so much more work to do anything better in C. And mostly what has been proven about C is that just about any significant C program has serious pointer and memory management bugs.

      C has shown to be particularly unsuitable to building component based software: software built from a framework with dynamically loadable components really needs to be robust against buggy components. What are examples of component based software? The Linux kernel, MS Office, the Gimp, OpenOffice, Mozilla, and lots more. That's why Microsoft is betting on C#--the only way to build large, reliable, component-based systems is to use a language with fault isolation, reliable error detection, and reflection.

      My general point is: much more stuff should be in interpreted languages in UNIX/Linux/BSD systems, in a decent, high-level interpreted language. An all-C/shell base install is just the wrong direction. Whether that language is Perl or something else, I don't really care. Perl is probably technically the worst language you could pick, but it is also the most commonly used one.

      And, in fact, large parts of systems like the Gnome desktop are written in interpreted high-level languages, so it's not even a question of whether it's happening. It's only some misguided notion of "minimalism" that causes the "base installs" to buck the trend. Of course, again, the notion that there is anything "lean" about a 100M binary install anyway is just laughable.

  17. Debian by nvainio · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you want your program to be included in Debian, you may package it yourself. Debian New Maintainer's Guide is a good place to start at.

    Or, you could file an RFP (Request For Package). See instructions.

  18. I don't think it's really all that hard... by onomatomania · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  19. e-mail by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Make sure it can check your e-mail. No software is complete until it can check your e-mail.

  20. HE's from SCO! by servicepack158 · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's trying to sour the batch! Don't let him near it! :) j/k

  21. Meanwhile for Windows developers... by Flashpoint+X · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thankfully in the Windows world I don't have to concern myself about getting included in "official" distributions... I prefer to distribute my software via self-propagating emails. ;)

  22. Step 1: Write something useful... by jrwilk01 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If your app is useful to a large number of people, don't worry, it'll be included. The more people it appeals to, the faster it'll be adopted.

    Just let nature take its course. If no one wants to include your package, there is no point in having it included for the sake of vanity.

    If you are fairly confident of its usefulness, include a debian directory, and a rpm spec file in your source. That'll make it easy for people to package.

  23. Build Mindshare by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Informative
    Some distribution, I'm thinking of gentoo, have a user submission feature for new packages.

    Just submit a new ebuild as a bug report. (No, that IS actually the proper way.) After a few weeks in the mill, your package will be out and about and happily rsynced in with every gentoo user. Gentoo are working on porting portage, their source distribution mechanism, to MacOSx and Window (running CygWin).

    Of course, instant gratification is not a hallmark of the portage system.

    You are competing with everybody else's widget in portage. So just make sure you get in cahoots with the folks who write the install docs, and have your software be made the subject of a few ZDnet articles. Writing a HOWTO based around your product is also a good idea.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  24. How it worked for me .. by stevey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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>

  25. Version? by pjdepasq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dude, you're only at version 0.3. Don't you agree that it's a little early to be talking about adoption by the distributions?

  26. unique? by battjt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your commands are already installed on my system, or aren't needed.
    average
    awk '{sum+=$1}END{print sum/NR}'
    bound
    awk 'NR==1{min=$1}{max=$1>max?$1:max;min=$1 &lt; min?$1:min}END{print min,max}'
    interval
    awk '{print $1-last; last=$1}'
    numgrep ( 500 < x < 1000 or x is a multiple of 3)
    awk '$1 < 1000 && $1>500 || $1%3 == 0 {print $1}'
    numproc
    awk '{print $1 [[your math expression expressed in standard infix notation]]}'
    numsum
    awk '{sum += $1}END{print sum}'
    random
    awk supports rand(), bash has $RANDOM, Linux has /proc/random for a stream of random data. Any range can be chosen using 'numproc', for instance /1..10/ is 'rand() * 10 + 1'
    range
    Why are you ever instantiatin ranges? It wastes space. Ranges should be abstractly manipulated.
    round(floor)
    awk '{print int($1)}'
    round(nearest n)
    awk '{print int($1/n)*n}'
    These commands are easy to use and have a transparency that makes it very clear what the bugs would be, where as num-utils has warnings like

    round will drop off the decimal places in decimal numbers. This may cause some calculations to be in error, depending on how you are using the data.

    that make me wonder what round does if it has problems with decimal numbers.

    Joe
    --
    Joe Batt Solid Design
  27. After downloading it... by BuilderBob · · Score: 2, Informative

    You seem to be working explicitely with files, I tried to type "average 1 2 3" and got a file error, why not use?

    cat numbers.file | average

    This would make the commands script friendlier I think.

    Also, echo '1 2 3' | average output 1, which confused me, I fixed this by changing line 117 in 'average' to read

    while (m/\s*(\-?[0-9]*\.?[0-9]+)/g) {

    ,i.e., the if -> while, and ^ has gone, and the 'g' flag is used, this does all white-space separated numbers on a line. (That can be your first(?) bug-fix)

    Also, some countries use spacing to group `thousands` together, where American/English speaking countries use a comma, the French/Germans use commas to indicate decimal points, then there's comma separated values and the locale settings...(at least now I know why your using Perl :)

    random, I hope 'rand' uses /dev/null or something internally,numprocess doesn't like me doing ^ (power) first, after the comma, it's fine, expect that (5*1)^2 != 7 and (5*1)^1 != 4, whatever the carrat ^ does in Perl,it's not power, power is ** (carrat is xor looking at the results).

    I'll stop there, sorry for...um, you know..The only other thing I would say (and this doesn't really apply because your using Perl) is if all these functions are supposed to be doing essentially the same thing (code re-use is clear from the source) then the busybox method of compiling all of the commands as functions (saving some space) seems good, then you can softlink the commands to relevant functions. (e.g. 'numgrep file' would call 'all_function --numgrep file', where all_function is the real executable).

    (having said all that, numgrep does look useful though, grepping template source code for numbers when the templates have each line numbered is not fun).

    BB

  28. num-utils does not look that useful to me by NynexNinja · · Score: 2, Informative

    A big requirement for inclusion in any packaged distribution is the usefulness of the package. This package does not seem useful, from what I've seen already.

  29. Re:Don't use the GPL by thoolihan · · Score: 3, Informative

    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"
  30. Transparent Debian by debrain · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know about the rest of the world, but the process for getting something into Debian is fairly transparent.

    Either add your package to the wanted list, or become a Debian Developer yourself.

    I'm not saying becoming a Debian Developer is quick or easy (though few would describe it as really hard), but the process is very transparent, and available to anyone. In part, I suspect this transparency, in combination with its maturity, is why Debian has so many more packages than any other software distribution.

    Never underestimate the power of transparency. :)

  31. It's in Gentoo... by dotgod · · Score: 2, Funny
    alexscomp alex # emerge -s num-utils
    Searching...
    [ Results for search key : num-utils ]
    [ Applications found : 1 ]

    * sys-apps/num-utils
    Latest version available: 0.3
    Latest version installed: 0.3
    Size of downloaded files: 28 kB
    Homepage: http://suso.suso.org/programs/num-utils/
    Description: Set of programs for dealing with numbers from the command line

    HAHA don't get so excited...just pulling your leg.

  32. the FreeBSD perspective by JDizzy · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  33. easy by hexix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just put a blatant plug for it in the form of a question on Slashdot.

    Oh, wait. Nevermind.

    For real though, just post it on freshmeat and if people have an interest it'll get popular quick.

  34. To be included in Solaris... by Chris_Keene · · Score: 4, Funny

    For Solaris, once your util becomes an essential application used everyday by 99.9% of Solaris users, Sun and your good self can follow this procedure:

    - Use the Solaris package tools to create a package for your program, make the default install directory somethig sensible such as /opt/SUNWats/sun4u/bin/thiswillneverbeinyourPATH/p kg1921u9238/

    - make sure the package requires a few libraries that will take a least a day of pain to install on to any Solaris box.

    - Ensure to include a man page, avoid using words with less 5 syllables, refer to everything as n.

    - now do nothing for roughly six years (more if the program is required for other popular applications).

    - Once that is done, send the package to sunfreeware (because downloading endless packages from the designed-by-satan website is by far the quickest way of installing essential programs via a text based console).

    - It can sometimes only take a few years from this point for Sun to include it on the Solaris CDs!

    - Of course, they will first need to put it through the flag-randomiser to ensure no command line switch is the same as what it is for every other OS in known universe. It will also remove --help and -h, to avoid you having to do this yourself.

    - Just think, by Solaris 27 (aka SunOS 2.9.1) you can see your package installed by default from a Solaris CD!

    cjk
    PS remember, if your program involves text editing, ensure it implicitly uses ed, lord knows what confusion it will course otherwise.

    --
    You will forget this sig before you next see it
  35. For Mandrake Linux ... by buchanmilne · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... you can follow the guidelines on their site, although it may also be helpful to post a link to an SRPM in your mail (which you should also cc to the cooker list, since the employee handling contribs is very busy, but there are a lot of non-employee contributors who will be able to add your package.

    More and more development is being done by the community, so you may want to stop by the cooker wiki which may have more up-to-date documents than those on the Mandrakesoft website.

  36. Oh My God. by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I think we've all just been trolled. I don't believe there's really an attempt to ask a valid question here. This individual has written a couple of perl scripts, and truly believes they will change the world. He hasn't done any research (no mention of CPAN, thinks that FreeBSD does Perl, etc.), and truly believes that a few Perl math routines will change the world. Can you spell "ego trip"?

    But just in case I'm wrong, here's what you do: Point your browser to CPAN. Carefully read the instructions. Submit your scripts. If they're good, they'll get used, you'll make a name for yourself, and will be on the way to The Big Time.

    I really can't believe this made /.

  37. It's not difficult to just look it up! by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not hard to look up how to do it, when it's possible to do it. For example to add an item to Gentoo you have to fill out a form in their Bugzilla database pointing to your ebuild file you want to add to the tree. I've submitted a few different things, some were accepted, some were rejected.

    Redhat (last I checked, which was 3 years ago) has a much less formal method, you just email one of the people on the team and they may or may not add it in. Usually they won't, unless you can show that it's worth the trouble since it adds to the cost because they have to test it.

    Adding stuff to Gentoo and Debian are generally easier than Redhat and SuSE because of testing costs associated with commecial distributions versus free/community distros.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  38. FreeBSD by Brooks+Davis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, the odds of getting a new GPL'd program into the FreeBSD base system hover very near zero. On the other hand, if you want to get added to the ports collection, that's fairly easy. All you need to do is follow the instrucations in the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook.

    -- Brooks

    --
    -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
  39. Re:learn awk by joe_bruin · · Score: 2, Informative

    so let's see:

    you wrote 8 apps, in perl, that should take any perl programmer 2 minutes to do (and are so simple, one should use awk for them).

    the body of your apps has more text that is dedicated to license and documentation than actual code.

    your implementation is crap. i quote from your 'random' man page:
    random is slow when dealing with large ranges to randomly find a number from. This is because it creates a list of all potential numbers before picking one. So it can be memory intensive for large ranges.
    wtf?? if you were my employee, you'd be fired for writing code like this.

    your apps are of very little use to most people. and the ones that do need them likely have just the right variations on what they're doing that they might as well write their own.

    i would say your chance of getting included in any big distribution is approximately zero.