Best way to release a closed-source app.

[nbouilleaud]

(intro: no flame intended)

Hi folks.

I've got a little developer question. As a private company developing closed-source soft, and planning to support linux as well as win and macos, what king of release system would you use for your customers to download/install the application?

Let me explain: if BigCorp, inc (or SmallCorp) is releasing Photoshop/Office/whatever on linux tomorrow, what kind of package would be the best?
- a tarball + shellscript installer?
- an rpm/any distro specific package?
- just a big zip with the binaries (x86+ppc, of course) and the resource files in a custom folder architecture, and a readme stating "do what you want to create shortcuts/lanuchers on your desktop env"?
- anything?

Thanks for your ideas...

[AlexK]

In my opinion, you should have several options for people to choose from. e.g. offer them both the tarball + shell script and an rpm/deb package.

This way people can choose which one they feel comefortable with. My personal preferance on this issue would be to use a rpm/deb package as it is simple and easy to install.

[valan]

I would say that you at least need a tarball of the binaries so a user without rpm or apt can install the program fine. An rpm or deb is good to have though too, so that its easier for everyone. An installer is nice, but if not an installer than include install instructions. There are probably tools to make these different packages for you, Freshmeat or Sourceforge will have them if they are.

[nbouilleaud]

Thanks for your suggestions...

Actually, our soft is quite a small app, and is meant to be very simple to use. (think : my grandma can use it).

So, you see the dilemma: a tarball means commandline + follow the installation instructions, while providing only "the simple solution" (rpm+deb packages) would leave some users with no installer.

Something with the linux platform paradigm, I guess. Just provide everything, users will choose.

Well, thanks anyway, I'll try to provide both solutions.

[a thing]

http://www.autopackage.org/

[mhearn]

Feel free to contact us (the autopackage developers) about providing an easy to use installer for your application. Generally, if your EULA allows for repackaging/re-distribution, other people can provide packages for their distributions themselves.

If the software is freeware but not open source, you may even get into repositories like the ubuntu multiverse. But if you provide an autopackage you know anybody can install it easily, no matter what distro they have.

Anyway. We've given guidance to small companies like yours before, and are happy to do it again. Drop us a line either in the forums, or in the mailing list, or by emailing me directly (see http://plan99.net/ for my address)

[nbouilleaud]

Feel free to contact us (the autopackage developers) about providing an easy to use installer for your application. Generally, if your EULA allows for repackaging/re-distribution, other people can provide packages for their distributions themselves.

If the software is freeware but not open source, you may even get into repositories like the ubuntu multiverse. But if you provide an autopackage you know anybody can install it easily, no matter what distro they have.

Anyway. We've given guidance to small companies like yours before, and are happy to do it again. Drop us a line either in the forums, or in the mailing list, or by emailing me directly (see http://plan99.net/ for my address)

Thanks!

I've just posted a message on your forums. (can't find a way to make it work on ppc...)

Actually, I don't think repackaging is going to be allowed, even if it is freeware. But if autopackage works for everyone, that's just great.

Thanks again!