What I find complicated about Debian packaging is not how to use the tools and how to arrange the package, although that is certainly complicated, but not intractable. What I don't understand is once you have a package, why it is such a long and complicated process to get it into Debian.
You can't just upload it and forget, you have to sign up and become associated with that work, you have distribute your keys and get other people to trust you, you have to make a bug and file the package against that bug, etc. There is this whole social dynamic within Debian that I just don't understand at all.
If it was more like software development; make the package, git commit, push, post it to software like reddit and have people approve (upvote) it, then I'd be a maintainer already. Instead there's this whole process behind becoming a maintainer, finding a "mentor" etc, that for years I've just found to be a complete roadblock.
Leaving aside the specifics of Debian's tooling and social process (undeniably, these are arcane and complex), I suspect this has a lot to do with why Debian is such a reliable environment over time in a way that few software collections manage.
It would almost certainly be better if it were easier than it is to participate in Debian. I've thought about contributing for years, but I certainly haven't had the energy to clear those hurdles. On the other hand, there's something really important in the distance between typical modern software publication and packaging for an ecosystem like Debian.
I think we'd be a lot better off if more people were committed to the hard, tedious process stuff that renders software accessible to users, a good neighbor to other projects, and maintainable over the long term.
"Upload and forget" leads to packages which are uploaded once and then abandoned. This then becomes a burden. While the Debian process is time consuming and arcane it does select for people who are prepared to commit to maintaining packages for the longer term.
That said, the Debian processes are over 20 years old. I find contributing to the FreeBSD ports and MacOS X homebrew package collections simpler, and without the same level of jumping through hoops. Homebrew's git-based submission, review and CI testing is simple to use. Likewise submitting a patch for the FreeBSD ports. Debian could do something similar, but its workflows predate this significantly. Were Debian to adopt a similar process, I think it would make the process significantly more transparent. The existing practice is still oriented around single individuals maintaining and uploading single packages (though it can also be done by groups with their own private version control for the package/group). The newer methods are significantly more open with much lower barrier to entry.
These days there are several very active sponsors so it should not be a problem to get new packages in.
Upload and forget leads to dead packages that get removed next time there is a library transition. Debian is about long-term maintenance.
The social stuff (as well as the social contract and DFSG) is also what creates trust within and towards the Debian community and holds it together, which is the main reason it has lasted so long.
You can't just upload it and forget, you have to sign up and become associated with that work, you have distribute your keys and get other people to trust you, you have to make a bug and file the package against that bug, etc. There is this whole social dynamic within Debian that I just don't understand at all.
If it was more like software development; make the package, git commit, push, post it to software like reddit and have people approve (upvote) it, then I'd be a maintainer already. Instead there's this whole process behind becoming a maintainer, finding a "mentor" etc, that for years I've just found to be a complete roadblock.