Make Ubuntu desktop a better platform for App Developers

[Petko]

I'm not sure I agree with your solution , but the problem is very 
relevant . I've had a 1.0 of my app for 2 months now , but I don't have 
the time to dig into the deb-packaging , just because everything around 
it is too stone-age , and time-consuming to get working . The OpenSuse 
building service was the best thing I've seen , but I haven't got around 
making it work yet either (I've read on it for ~2-3 hours and set up an 
account etc. , but had to leave it at that for the time being) . Is the 
install process really that complex ??

On 04/09/2013 06:59 AM, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
> As I checked: http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/my-apps-packages/
>
> Proprietary apps get packaging service from Canonical, so far so good.
>
> But for open source apps, the authors have to provide a working PPA.
>
> Let's assume the App is written in C/GTK+ or C++/gtkmm since
> * These should be popular options
> * Python/PyGObject is covered by Quickly
>
> So how to develop the the app?
> 1. Use whatever text editor and use Autotools as the build system,
> maintain autofoo manually.
> 2. Use Anjuta; Autotools is wrapped by Aujuta
> 3. Use IDEs like Eclipse CDT, Code::Blocks but the build system is different.
>
> We should take great care of third option since Android, iOS, Windows
> development all happen in IDEs.
>
> Let's forget about the issue whether Eclipse CDT/Code::Blocks has good
> support for GTK+/gtkmm.
>
> Say the app works on the developer's local machine now, how to package it?
>
> Well, one can check Debian New Maintainers' Guide but it is painful to
> read and it aims at a different audience.
>
> Autotools should be better supported by whatever packaging helper
> tools, but I don't know any documentation on how to make Autotools
> built app /opt friendly.
>
> How to package an app built by custom build system can be more painful.
>
> ######
>
> Actually I find that binary packing seem to be much less painful,
> there is nothing superfluous in binary packaging.
> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/Debian-Binary-Package-Building-HOWTO/
>
> But binary packaging works better for proprietary apps, since source
> code is not available anyway.
> For open source apps, we need to make sure that the source code does
> produce the binary, right?
>
> To solve the issue for open source apps, either Canonical accept
> source code of open source apps and help packaging also.
> Another way is that open source apps can be submitted binary only,
> given a way of obtaining source is given. The source can be fake but
> there doesn't seem to be a good motivation to do so. And all people
> including users should be welcomed to report apps that are fake open
> source.
>