> Their job is building a working .deb with working software
If that were was all there is to packaging - upstream developers could do the same job & have their CI/CD pipeline shoot out a .deb file.
However, it's not unheard of for package managers to maintain an evolving patchset that changes the default behavior and better integrates the upstream project to the rest of the distribution and its philosophy.
Upstream developers don’t have the time and bandwidth to set up packaging for all distros and versions.
Improving defaults may be fine according to some. Removing major features advertised by the software due to political reasons is not fine.
My software is a victim of Debian maintainers as well: they chose to remove the default theme from our static site generator, because it was built on top of Bootstrap 3, but Debian only shipped Bootstrap 2 at the time in a global package (they also changed the bootstrap 2 theme to use symlinks to the global version). How is this “better integration with the philosophy”?
> My software is a victim of Debian maintainers as well: they chose to remove the default theme from our static site generator, because it was built on top of Bootstrap 3, but Debian only shipped Bootstrap 2 at the time in a global package (they also changed the bootstrap 2 theme to use symlinks to the global version)
As a Debian stable devotee, this seems reasonable to me. If I wanted each package to bring along & manage its own dependencies, I'd use flatpaks.
> How is this “better integration with the philosophy”?
I'm guessing Bootstrap 3 wasn't yet in whatever release/channel your software was being packaged for?
Can't you imagine any possible benefits of not shipping bootstrap v2 and Bootstrap v3? Or do you just disagree with the Debian unstable -> testing -> stable philosophy? Dependency juggling is just one of the issues distro package maintainers have to wrangle with, that upstream maintainers typically don't care about - an upstream project can declare "this version requires the latest glibc", but distro packagers may have to patch around that because the latest version of glibc hasn't been through testing.
We ship a copy of bootstrap within our data files. They could just leave it as-is and have it working. Bootstrap is a CSS/JS library, there is no global /usr/lib to be concerned about.
It is trivial to make the Bootstrap 3 global package install into a different folder than Bootstrap 2. It isn’t so trivial for shared libraries without different sonames, for example.
I think one of the potentially bigger things that doesn't yet exist is an easy way for non-developers to build their own packages with whatever options they want. By easy I mean a GUI tool that works across the majority of projects out there, and on any distro.
> If that were was all there is to packaging - upstream developers could do the same job & have their CI/CD pipeline shoot out a .deb file.
That's what some users seem to want today. It's why both Flatpak and Snap exist with the goals of letting upstream developers just CI/CD spit out a "universal" package for Linux and getting a more "Mac-like" (or "Windows-like" if you prefer) install experience with less waiting for package maintainers to get around to publishing upstream changes.
Admittedly, Flatpak and Snap aren't universally beloved either, yet, but the balance of what the job for a distro's package maintainers should be is definitely in shift.
If that were was all there is to packaging - upstream developers could do the same job & have their CI/CD pipeline shoot out a .deb file.
However, it's not unheard of for package managers to maintain an evolving patchset that changes the default behavior and better integrates the upstream project to the rest of the distribution and its philosophy.