As I see it, distribution packages are not very well fitted for IPFS, in relation to simply downloading the binary.
Following requirements into official repositories would mean to package not only IPFS, but all its dependencies, so it can be built offline by using them (rather than
gx install), or somehow to come up with a source-code tarball that includes everything (something IPFS does not officially provide).
The alternative is to wrap the built binary in the source package, or to have a source package which needs to be built online to download the deps. As far as I'm aware this goes against official packaging guidelines for major distros. Of course you can do it anyway (and some people have done it), but it is then harder to prove you are not distributing an altered version of IPFS (with malware or who knows what), as it will never receive the official repository stamp of approval.
As a result, IPFS would need to approve (sign and possibly host) such packages instead, which are after all just a way to wrap the binary!
I'm inclined to think that the best way to approach package distribution is by a ipfs-installer package which provides an installer for IPFS (which then downloads the build). This technique is used normally for non-opensource stuff like Steam and is a way to provide an easy way to install a piece of software and at the same time be accepted in the official repositories.
These thoughts is why I haven't already packaged it for OpenSUSE for example...