You originally said that:

> podman creators do not give a damn about how their binary should be run on different linux distros

Just to play the devil's advocate here, maybe I missed something so I'll try and be verbose and start from the beginning: Podman is developed by Red Hat, and they have chosen to build for, and support RHEL (and implicitly derivatives thereof). There are no "supported" binaries available for $DISTRO because Red Hat has decided not to spend money on supporting, developing and testing for that specific distribution.

Podman is licensed under Apache 2.0 which means that it would be possible for anyone (for example Canonical, who are "responsible" for Ubuntu, or volunteers) to build and test the code for their distribution.

Doesn't it follow then that the responsibility for making Podman available on Ubuntu falls on either Canonical or volunteers that use Ubuntu, and not Red Hat? Otherwise, you could blame any developer on any software for not making their code available on any distro, and perhaps even any OS.

Makedeb is the Debian variant of AUR[1], which allows users to (more) easily compile software that they want but is not available in "regular" repos, so it could be a way to run a newer version of podman on Debian. I haven't tried it, but I believe the idea of these "handheld compilations" is to include the things you express worries about, like dependencies.

I read the links you provided, and "baude" (maintainer) stated sort of what I said above:

> we rely on community support for distributions support

lsm5 said:

> issues are best reported at Ubuntu's official bug tracker

While I can understand the frustration, or disagreeing with the decision, regarding the fact that podman is not equally available for Ubuntu (or any other distro), I don't really agree that the Podman developers themselves (or RH) are more responsible for this than say Canonical or the users themselves.

[1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/

Recently I came about a couple of projects on github where they are making a binary available through docker AND the so called 'bare-metal' (which expression I hate, because up until recently [ok-ok, couple of years] there wasn't any other method than just run it as it is on the hardware/os), meaning you can run it on any linux distro (without docker of course), so open source developers certainly can make software that runs on any (or at least most of) linux distros. Especially when there's a big corp. behind them.

What's more is podman especially is about running software on different distros easily.

What I'm expecting from RH is make software (if that is free and opensource and about running other software without the hassle of packaging, etc.) that can be - sort of easily - used on other distros too. But just to be clear, this expectation is not only towards RH.. it is towards any other linux distros. In this special case it is RH indeed.

The whole idea behind podman is great (especially not having to have a root daemon to run containers), but if they want it to succeed they need a proper and easy way for other linux distro users to use it.

and yes, they also said in https://github.com/containers/podman/discussions/13097#discu...: "if I want to get Real Wise. Only Supported Podman comes from Red Hat Enteprise Linux and perhaps SUSE. (Maybe Oracle Linux)"

> Doesn't it follow then that the responsibility for making Podman available on Ubuntu falls on either Canonical or volunteers that use Ubuntu, and not Red Hat?

As mentioned in https://github.com/containers/podman/discussions/13097, node.js is just an example, but they could do it. Why wouldn't redhat do it with podman?

> Otherwise, you could blame any developer on any software for not making their code available on any distro, and perhaps even any OS.

Yes you could. And in certain cases - like this one - you should too.