> I don't think having developers doing the packaging is an ideal situation. I often hear developers complaining about the multitude of GNU/Linux distros because they think it's somehow their responsibility to provide binaries.
It is in many scenarios. If I have a little app I want to package then it becomes my responsibility. For commercial software I make it always is and this is part of the reason that linux sucks for commercial software.
And then there's issues like security patches. Developers need to know what branches are used downstream.
>It is in many scenarios. If I have a little app I want to package then it becomes my responsibility. For commercial software I make it always is and this is part of the reason that linux sucks for commercial software.
You are talking about proprietary software, where developers have unjust power over users. If you want to distribute such software then yes, you have to do the work of making binaries for each distro you want to support by yourself. I would argue that it's not GNU/Linux that sucks here. If instead you gave your users freedom by using a free software license on the source code, then others may package the software for use on the system of their choosing.
It is in many scenarios. If I have a little app I want to package then it becomes my responsibility. For commercial software I make it always is and this is part of the reason that linux sucks for commercial software.
And then there's issues like security patches. Developers need to know what branches are used downstream.