4 ms·

Seems uncommon that those things would prevent upgrades. It sounds more like Ubuntu is beginning to suffer from an excess of complexity.

rlpb 5y ago
I think part of the problem is that third party apt repositories have become normalised as if they're a reasonable way to "add on" to your existing system. In reality they're a hack on a packaging system that was never designed for third party plugability in this way. They very often break future upgrades. Third party apt repositories fundamentally cannot express all the necessary metadata to allow for upgrades to work in the general case. They don't even namespace properly; apt cannot even tell the difference between a third party installed package and one that came from the distribution. And third party packagers typically don't even consider future upgrades. This is why Ubuntu is working on snaps: they are a mechanism that allows for third party plugability in a way that does not break the system. If we want upgrades not to break, the system dpkg/apt installation needs to be left alone and not be interfered with by third parties.
- the__alchemist 5y ago
  This is at the core of why I've found Ubuntu (More broadly Linux?) to be frustrating to use. Installing programs or functionality beyond what it ships with leads to the system ending in a "hacked up", as you put it, state. Then reliability tanks.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  So, what should I do if you don't decide to include critical release of a package that was out there for 6 months? https://github.com/swaywm/sway/releases https://github.com/swaywm/sway/releases
  - rlpb 5y ago
    Here's some further information on sway specifically. Looks like it couldn't be updated because depending packages weren't ready for the switch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/phoc/+bug/1938404 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/phoc/+bug/1938404
  - rlpb 5y ago
    Sorry that wasn't included. Please understand that it's not about "you" and "me" though. Anyone can contribute to Ubuntu, and "any responsibility can be carried by any contributor who demonstrates the required capacity and competence" (https://ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct https://ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct). So please join us and help to make this happen next time. Of course there are processes and policies to help us ensure quality and that other user expectations (eg. stability, integration) are met as best as we can. These take time and effort to negotiate. But we'd be happy to help to explain what's needed to be contributed to make progress in Ubuntu itself for any specific circumstance. Find us in #ubuntu-devel on Libera Chat, or https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discu...
- pxc 5y ago
  > Third party apt repositories [...] don't even namespace properly; apt cannot even tell the difference between a third party installed package and one that came from the distribution. This is true. dnf and zypper handle this just fine in the RPM world, and they operate under basically the same paradigm. Are there no plans for apt to catch up?

rlpb 5y ago

I think part of the problem is that third party apt repositories have become normalised as if they're a reasonable way to "add on" to your existing system. In reality they're a hack on a packaging system that was never designed for third party plugability in this way. They very often break future upgrades. Third party apt repositories fundamentally cannot express all the necessary metadata to allow for upgrades to work in the general case. They don't even namespace properly; apt cannot even tell the difference between a third party installed package and one that came from the distribution. And third party packagers typically don't even consider future upgrades. This is why Ubuntu is working on snaps: they are a mechanism that allows for third party plugability in a way that does not break the system. If we want upgrades not to break, the system dpkg/apt installation needs to be left alone and not be interfered with by third parties.

the__alchemist 5y ago
This is at the core of why I've found Ubuntu (More broadly Linux?) to be frustrating to use. Installing programs or functionality beyond what it ships with leads to the system ending in a "hacked up", as you put it, state. Then reliability tanks.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
So, what should I do if you don't decide to include critical release of a package that was out there for 6 months? https://github.com/swaywm/sway/releases https://github.com/swaywm/sway/releases
- rlpb 5y ago
  Here's some further information on sway specifically. Looks like it couldn't be updated because depending packages weren't ready for the switch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/phoc/+bug/1938404 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/phoc/+bug/1938404
- rlpb 5y ago
  Sorry that wasn't included. Please understand that it's not about "you" and "me" though. Anyone can contribute to Ubuntu, and "any responsibility can be carried by any contributor who demonstrates the required capacity and competence" (https://ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct https://ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct). So please join us and help to make this happen next time. Of course there are processes and policies to help us ensure quality and that other user expectations (eg. stability, integration) are met as best as we can. These take time and effort to negotiate. But we'd be happy to help to explain what's needed to be contributed to make progress in Ubuntu itself for any specific circumstance. Find us in #ubuntu-devel on Libera Chat, or https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discu...
pxc 5y ago
> Third party apt repositories [...] don't even namespace properly; apt cannot even tell the difference between a third party installed package and one that came from the distribution. This is true. dnf and zypper handle this just fine in the RPM world, and they operate under basically the same paradigm. Are there no plans for apt to catch up?