> If everyone is just misunderstanding it, than it's terrible.
This is the place where I'm sure we're not talking about the same aspect of
building packages.
I assumed that you were talking about Debian specifically, since the only hint
to the topic was "apt-get" somewhere earlier. I thought that you were talking
about the old, overcomplicated way of providing manually all the necessary
targets (binary, build, install, clean) and specifying dh_{any} commands in
debian/rules, possibly using underdocumented CDBS. This is what would be
straightened up by the article I mentioned.
Instead, you seem to mean something about packaging on a higher level than
that. Do you care to elaborate, what's terrible in building binary (or DEB)
packages? I'm doing it for years and I'm yet to encounter a more sensible way
of deploying software, including web applications (which are one huge
inconsistent and fragile mess).
> [...] when you consider that devs need to know how to build for apt-get, yum, etc, it's understandable, IMO, why they don't want to bother.
What magic do they need to know? There are very little things for DEBs and
RPMs. One thing (a common one) is to have a simple way to compile the project
offline. Another (again, a common one, and not limited to packaging) is to
know how your runtime and compiler (if any) allows to use libraries. Then you
need to know there can be post-install scripts, which are meant to e.g. add
user account for a daemon, and possibly how to write an init script. And there
are two build rules skeletons to know, but those are quite short. This is
the only thing which differs in a significant way. Or have I missed something
in your opinion?