Why does everything have to be in a repo?
I notice a trend lately. If something isn’t in a repo, people whine and cry…
That said, I enjoy having large repos with lots of software, but I don’t complain if what I want isn’t there, I simply take the time to compile it myself, that of course may require finding some dependencies but whats the big deal with that?
I guess it just baffles me what people find so difficult about
./configure
make
make install
In general, it’s a pain to compile by hand and keep a tidy system.
I see.
So it’s someone else’s job to compile the latest and greatest, keep it updated and build binary blobs for the masses, because “it is a pain” to do. lol!
Sorry, but that doesn’t wash with me. 
I am extremely grateful for the folks who do all this hard work for free and on their own time. I don’t think most users take the time to think if they think it is hard, how hard it must be for someone who takes the time to do this with hundreds and or thousands of applications for them
I am talking about the whiners and criers, who are too lazy to do anything for themselves yet have the audacity to complain when someone else didn’t do it for them.
Like I said, I love having all the software available to me in the various repositories. But if I can’t get what I want, then I build it myself.
Were not talking rocket science here. 
What do you think, what will user do if example while compiling some program he/she hardly figures out which additional dependencies need to be compiled, that they are need to be specified with another cli option, and after all the make stop at one line without any error message. He/she will be confused, believe me. 
My girlfriend uses rpm packages on openSUSE - why? Because it’s simply to maintain and install. Not everybody is hobby Linux user! Some people doesn’t have enough time to hack these things. 
Read here about advantages and disadvantages of the rpm packages If you are still confused:
RPM Package Manager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Isn’t that what the Build Service is supposed to help streamline?
Unless all of these packaging systems start using a more unified format so developers can produce one package to distribute then the advantage of the repository is knowing that it will work with here your distribution puts things.
The best bet is probably to make it as easy as possible for people to create packages and some method for the users to submit the packages they’ve compiled for adding to the repository.
I think Fedora has some sites that helped users in packaging things themselves but others are more tight-fisted (-er controlled).
The downside is that these packages still need to be vetted for sneaky people trying to slip something in, to not-so-thorough users who don’t test it enough (thus ruining the distro’s hard-earned stable reputation)
Perhaps the developer isn’t using foobar distribution, and isn’t interested in making a binary blob for xdistro, and zdistro.
He has written application free for anyone to use if they so wish. Great stuuf, I love it.
I also love it when someone takes the time to make a binary blob, and put it in a repo.
But when they “don’t”. I certainly don’t complain about it, I don’t whine about it.
I will build it myself.
After all, if I am not willing to do something (or at least try) how can I reasonably and logically complain that someone else should have done this for me.
Hi
Then there is always the build service if they don’t want a full build
environment (or use the obs server rpms on a local machine). I prefer
building rpms, makes it easy to update with a spec (text file) file.
–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 11.1 x86 Kernel 2.6.27.7-9-default
up 1 day 21:08, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.15, 0.18
GPU GeForce 6600 TE/6200 TE - Driver Version: 180.27
I understand what brucecadieux is saying. He’s not complaining about binary packages, or about the availability of them being in repos. He’s is annoyed, and rightfully so, about users who are unappreciative and take things for granted.
Heaven forbid that you should actually put a bit of work into it.
Never mind the people who spend their free time coding the system, debugging and patching the system. Compiling so that you can enjoy the system. Then finally the packagers, who spend time taking the source packages and making binary packages. The system, and 99% of its software is provided for free, done because these people love to. Then comes along joe-linux-user complaining that this or that isn’t the way he wants it. boo-hoo. These users have no appreciation for the work that is being done, or has been done.
It’s not even about the buildservice. The buildservice was designed to streamline, simplify, and standardize packaging. You can find Ubuntu packages there, Fedora, and Mandriva, packages there. The issue isn’t about the availability of packages. It’s about users appreciation.
Listen to what he’s saying
I notice a trend lately. If something isn’t in a repo, people whine and cry…
That said, I enjoy having large repos with lots of software, but I don’t complain if what I want isn’t there…<snip>
He’s not complaining about the packages or the repos or the buildservice, but the complainers.
Now if you run across and application you like that does not provide an RPM for openSUSE how difficult is it to
Is there a place that spells out the “proper channels” to follow in order to do this?
Exactly Jonathan_r, well said!
You just don’t understand what I am saying rotfl!
Thank you. I was looking in the wrong place before.
I agree that the Linux world seems to have been infested with a lot of whiners and criers of late. I’m getting a bit weary of it myself.
> I guess it just baffles me what people find so difficult about
>
> ./configure
>
> make
>
> make install
The problem I have with it is you have to recreate the developers desktop
configuration to make it work the above work. I don’t necessarily want all
of the different dev packages required to build an app installed and taking
up space for every conceivable application I might need to build. Those
packages just sit and waste space after their one time use. In general for
me, if it isn’t in a repo I don’t use it. There are exceptions, but
generally speaking it is the case.
Hi
One of the main reasons I’ve started using the build service. I do also
use a vmware machine as well.
Then of course there is the obs server (haven’t tried it yet).
I’ve built a few (no sure if the OP’s of were complaining as such
though) packages for users now, most I have found useful myself.
–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 11.1 x86 Kernel 2.6.27.7-9-default
up 1 day 23:18, 2 users, load average: 0.28, 0.62, 0.51
GPU GeForce 6600 TE/6200 TE - Driver Version: 180.27
You don’t have to duplicate the developers desktop. Dependencies are dependencies, whether working with source or binary. If the source package requires dev packages, then the binary will to. You need to have a better understanding of packaging and dependencies.
> You don’t have to duplicate the developers desktop.
I was jesting a bit, but it does FEEL sometimes like you are recreating the
exact environment in which the dev built his application.
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 13:36 +0000, brucecadieux wrote:
> Why does everything have to be in a repo?
>
…snip…
>
> I guess it just baffles me what people find so difficult about
>
> /configure
>
> make
>
> make install
It’s not hard… but didn’t you know that there’s a patch
for the package… you need to rebuild it… just fyi.
(that’s why people want everything in a “supported” repo)
If you follow the developer, they not only make changes
but also change dependencies. Which might cause a dependency
cascade effect on your “distro” of choice.
This is why you see patches backed into supported repos
rather than just upgrading version levels… newer versions
often create a dependency nightmare. Frankly, most developers
do NOT take that into account when modifying their software.
Perhaps because they’re not packaging, but focused on developing new features. If you’re writing software, then re-using other ppl’s work saves a lot of time, and may be the only way to enhance functionality in a maintainable way. When configuring, part of it may be to turn off unwanted features, which cause dependancies.
In general the trick is to test & build on the oldest systems you support, then very frequently rpm’s can be installed without alteration or rebuild between releases. Though this is less like to work with tightly coupled desktop software.
There was a rpm_build script to test out rpm specfiles and automatic package building, which installed a basic development environment in a chroot from installation DVD, so accidental reliance on some quirk of the local system was avoided.
A lot of the comments, seem to be end user whinges, about the effort of volunteers, or organisations operating on a shoe string.
Perhaps those wanting things to be better, should organise some foundation, or find one to contribute money to, aimed at improving the desktop experience, by sorting out video, audio issues and niggles in applications.