7 ms·

APT Browse: A web browser for the contents of Debian (and Ubuntu) packages

131 points by night-rider 4y ago

cassianoleal 4y ago
What's wrong with https://packages.debian.org/ https://packages.debian.org/ and https://packages.ubuntu.com/ https://packages.ubuntu.com/ ?
- 4oo4 4y ago
  Also apt-file so you don't have to leave the terminal
- treffer 4y ago
  It seems to put lore focus on the extracted dpkg. So you can browse and download the unpacked files. I prefer the search on the original sites, but this looks neat if you want the payload of a package.
  - 1kurac 4y ago
    In that case, what's wrong with https://sources.debian.org https://sources.debian.org (other than people apparently not being aware of it)?
    - cbsks 4y ago
      sources.debian.org has the source for the package. apt-browse.org has the files that are installed by the package. Compare: https://sources.debian.org/src/htop/2.0.2-1/ https://sources.debian.org/src/htop/2.0.2-1/ https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/htop/2.0.2-1/ https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/...
  - epilys 4y ago
    You can see the contents of a package in Debian's package site, you have to go to the available architectures of a package and select the list of files for the one you want You can also search contents of packages if you select the option in search (the other options are package name, description)
- haunter 4y ago
  The tracker is even better imo For example https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/curl https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/curl
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rgovostes 4y ago
  For one, packages.ubuntu.com throws errors or is down all the time. (I got an Internal Server Error just now). The usability of searching "package directories" vs "the contents of packages", having to toggle between package names vs "source package names" vs descriptions, and choosing substring matching modes is... well, very typically Linux.
unwind 4y ago
Quite neat, but I had two problems: 1. The naming is confusing, a web interface that lets you browse a particular database is not generally called "a web browser" for that database. A web browser is the actual software you use to access the web. 2. I searched for a (not so) random package [1] and quickly got a bunch of matches. I did not understand the ordering (the latest version number was not on top). 3. When I clicked the first match, I got a "Bad Gateway" error from [2], but I guess it might be squeezed by HN just now. [1]: https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=gentoo https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=gentoo [2]: https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/jessie/main/amd64/gentoo/0.19.13-2/?query=gentoo https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/jessie/main/amd64/g...
- Atlas22 4y ago
  Regarding 3, It seems like its related to package size. Openssh-server has the same problem [3]. Was also looking at some moderately sized packages and it was struggling but would eventually return the page. Smaller packages seem to be no problem. [3]: https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/openssh-server/1:7.4p1-10+deb9u5/?query=openssh https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/...
- unwind 4y ago
  Also I clearly had problems counting all the way to two. Darnit.
ognyankulev 4y ago
But why "newest" Debian release is 9.x (Stretch) released in 2017 (current alias "oldoldstable") ?
- jwilk 4y ago
  And the latest Ubuntu appears to be bionic (18.04).
neilv 4y ago
https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=firefox-esr https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=firefox-esr doesn't seem to be finding `firefox-esr` in current Debian Stable: https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firefox-esr https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firefox-esr Also note that there are security updates to the version in bullseye: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox-esr https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox-esr (BTW, I really wish projects wouldn't have unnecessary codenames. Search engines could deal with people searching for "foosoftware 11" rather than "barcodename". Now we have to memorize numerous codenames for one thing, and frequently translate back and forth between codenames and the actual name and version number.)
- jwilk 4y ago
  Looks like it hasn't been updated for years.
  - input_sh 4y ago
    Ubuntu version goes up to bionic (18.04), so yeah, no update for five years now.
- SomeHacker44 4y ago
  The worst ones are Intel code names. I cannot remember one from the other.
suprjami 4y ago
I have used https://pkgs.org/ https://pkgs.org/ for years, which has many more distros, includes popular third-party repos like EPEL, and lets you filter to distro or package type you're interested in.
- rascul 4y ago
  pkgs.org doesn't seem to let you inspect the contents of the files in the packages (unless I missed it). I guess that's what the APT Browse thing does but it doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pncnmnp 4y ago
Back in 2016, when I was exploring Linux for the first time, one of my favorite commands was "apt-cache search <keywords>." It performs a grep on package descriptions, and I discovered many fascinating things this way.
- jwilk 4y ago
  You don't need sudo for that.
  - pncnmnp 4y ago
    Yup! Not sure why I put it there.
- lathiat 4y ago
  It’s also super handy to add -n to search the names only sometimes
gabereiser 4y ago
Fun fact, deb packages are just ar files with a funky header (d.e.b) and some pre/post scripts. Ar files are also .o files after compilation but before linking, what!?! Also, tar is based on Ar, WHAT!?! Elf files, the whole thing is standardized! WHAAAT!?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_(Unix) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_(Unix)
- Andrex 4y ago
  I wasn't expecting my world to be thrown so hard from reading HN comments today, but here we are...
- bayindirh 4y ago
  ...and younger generations think that the older tech and file formats are just incapable piles of bytes put together haphazardly. We all have much to learn from the past tech, yet we ignore and re-invent the same problems over and over again, proverbially walking in circles. BTW, while the parent is technically correct, .deb files can contain much more features and magic than that.
  - gabereiser 4y ago
    trying not to completely blow their mind. Keeping it simple, describing it just as an archive.
  - msla 4y ago
    > We all have much to learn from the past tech Yes, we certainly can't forget shell archives.
  - oefrha 4y ago
    The rpm file format is indeed a pile of bytes put together haphazardly. https://xyrillian.de/thoughts/posts/argh-pm.html https://xyrillian.de/thoughts/posts/argh-pm.html
    - noirscape 4y ago
      The quick mention of the LSB spec led me to this fun Wikipedia page[0]. Apparently Red Hat once wanted to force Linux distros to accept gzipped RPM packages, as well as demand that things like CUPS were always installed. Attempts to comply with it were pretty much non-existent outside of the still used legacy lsb_release command and its associated configuration file, since Red Hat had apparently never actually considered whether or not anyone wanted to comply with it. The entire thing is an ISO spec even, which is kinda baffling. Deprecation was also a mess, with it initially only being possible to remove things from the spec 3 major versions after the specs release (only for that to be violated with version 4.0->4.1 where they removed Java as an optional module that was required to be LSB compliant). The entire thing went bust in 2015 due to lack of interest. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
hleszek 4y ago
You know what would be nice? To do the reverse: I provide a file path and you can determine in which package(s) it is present.
- cbsks 4y ago
  dpkg or apt-file can do this from the command line. Or you can use https://packages.ubuntu.com/ https://packages.ubuntu.com/ https://askubuntu.com/questions/481/how-do-i-find-the-package-that-provides-a-file https://askubuntu.com/questions/481/how-do-i-find-the-packag...
  - itsmartapuntocm 4y ago
    DNF as well with “dnf provides <filename>”
- oneshtein 4y ago
  On rpm-based systems: `rpm -qf /path/to/file`. It's very helpful when I stare at a file and thinking, "WTF this file doing there?". These two commands help me immediately: `rpm -qif file` to show description of file package, `rpm -qlf file` to show list of other files in the same package.
- loloquwowndueo 4y ago
  dpkg -S /your/path Have fun :)
pabs3 4y ago
Does anyone use this regularly? What situations would it be useful in?
tpoacher 4y ago
how is this different / "better" than apt-file?

131 points by night-rider 4y ago

What's wrong with https://packages.debian.org/ https://packages.debian.org/ and https://packages.ubuntu.com/ https://packages.ubuntu.com/ ?

4oo4 4y ago
Also apt-file so you don't have to leave the terminal
treffer 4y ago
It seems to put lore focus on the extracted dpkg. So you can browse and download the unpacked files. I prefer the search on the original sites, but this looks neat if you want the payload of a package.
- 1kurac 4y ago
  In that case, what's wrong with https://sources.debian.org https://sources.debian.org (other than people apparently not being aware of it)?
  - cbsks 4y ago
    sources.debian.org has the source for the package. apt-browse.org has the files that are installed by the package. Compare: https://sources.debian.org/src/htop/2.0.2-1/ https://sources.debian.org/src/htop/2.0.2-1/ https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/htop/2.0.2-1/ https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/...
- epilys 4y ago
  You can see the contents of a package in Debian's package site, you have to go to the available architectures of a package and select the list of files for the one you want You can also search contents of packages if you select the option in search (the other options are package name, description)
haunter 4y ago
The tracker is even better imo For example https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/curl https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/curl
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rgovostes 4y ago
For one, packages.ubuntu.com throws errors or is down all the time. (I got an Internal Server Error just now). The usability of searching "package directories" vs "the contents of packages", having to toggle between package names vs "source package names" vs descriptions, and choosing substring matching modes is... well, very typically Linux.

unwind 4y ago

Quite neat, but I had two problems: 1. The naming is confusing, a web interface that lets you browse a particular database is not generally called "a web browser" for that database. A web browser is the actual software you use to access the web. 2. I searched for a (not so) random package [1] and quickly got a bunch of matches. I did not understand the ordering (the latest version number was not on top). 3. When I clicked the first match, I got a "Bad Gateway" error from [2], but I guess it might be squeezed by HN just now. [1]: https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=gentoo https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=gentoo [2]: https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/jessie/main/amd64/gentoo/0.19.13-2/?query=gentoo https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/jessie/main/amd64/g...

Atlas22 4y ago
Regarding 3, It seems like its related to package size. Openssh-server has the same problem [3]. Was also looking at some moderately sized packages and it was struggling but would eventually return the page. Smaller packages seem to be no problem. [3]: https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/openssh-server/1:7.4p1-10+deb9u5/?query=openssh https://www.apt-browse.org/browse/debian/stretch/main/amd64/...
unwind 4y ago
Also I clearly had problems counting all the way to two. Darnit.

ognyankulev 4y ago

But why "newest" Debian release is 9.x (Stretch) released in 2017 (current alias "oldoldstable") ?

jwilk 4y ago
And the latest Ubuntu appears to be bionic (18.04).

neilv 4y ago

https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=firefox-esr https://www.apt-browse.org/search/?query=firefox-esr doesn't seem to be finding `firefox-esr` in current Debian Stable: https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firefox-esr https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firefox-esr Also note that there are security updates to the version in bullseye: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox-esr https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox-esr (BTW, I really wish projects wouldn't have unnecessary codenames. Search engines could deal with people searching for "foosoftware 11" rather than "barcodename". Now we have to memorize numerous codenames for one thing, and frequently translate back and forth between codenames and the actual name and version number.)

jwilk 4y ago
Looks like it hasn't been updated for years.
- input_sh 4y ago
  Ubuntu version goes up to bionic (18.04), so yeah, no update for five years now.
SomeHacker44 4y ago
The worst ones are Intel code names. I cannot remember one from the other.

suprjami 4y ago

I have used https://pkgs.org/ https://pkgs.org/ for years, which has many more distros, includes popular third-party repos like EPEL, and lets you filter to distro or package type you're interested in.

rascul 4y ago
pkgs.org doesn't seem to let you inspect the contents of the files in the packages (unless I missed it). I guess that's what the APT Browse thing does but it doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pncnmnp 4y ago

Back in 2016, when I was exploring Linux for the first time, one of my favorite commands was "apt-cache search <keywords>." It performs a grep on package descriptions, and I discovered many fascinating things this way.

jwilk 4y ago
You don't need sudo for that.
- pncnmnp 4y ago
  Yup! Not sure why I put it there.
lathiat 4y ago
It’s also super handy to add -n to search the names only sometimes

gabereiser 4y ago

Fun fact, deb packages are just ar files with a funky header (d.e.b) and some pre/post scripts. Ar files are also .o files after compilation but before linking, what!?! Also, tar is based on Ar, WHAT!?! Elf files, the whole thing is standardized! WHAAAT!?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_(Unix) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_(Unix)

Andrex 4y ago
I wasn't expecting my world to be thrown so hard from reading HN comments today, but here we are...
bayindirh 4y ago
...and younger generations think that the older tech and file formats are just incapable piles of bytes put together haphazardly. We all have much to learn from the past tech, yet we ignore and re-invent the same problems over and over again, proverbially walking in circles. BTW, while the parent is technically correct, .deb files can contain much more features and magic than that.
- gabereiser 4y ago
  trying not to completely blow their mind. Keeping it simple, describing it just as an archive.
- msla 4y ago
  > We all have much to learn from the past tech Yes, we certainly can't forget shell archives.
- oefrha 4y ago
  The rpm file format is indeed a pile of bytes put together haphazardly. https://xyrillian.de/thoughts/posts/argh-pm.html https://xyrillian.de/thoughts/posts/argh-pm.html
  - noirscape 4y ago
    The quick mention of the LSB spec led me to this fun Wikipedia page[0]. Apparently Red Hat once wanted to force Linux distros to accept gzipped RPM packages, as well as demand that things like CUPS were always installed. Attempts to comply with it were pretty much non-existent outside of the still used legacy lsb_release command and its associated configuration file, since Red Hat had apparently never actually considered whether or not anyone wanted to comply with it. The entire thing is an ISO spec even, which is kinda baffling. Deprecation was also a mess, with it initially only being possible to remove things from the spec 3 major versions after the specs release (only for that to be violated with version 4.0->4.1 where they removed Java as an optional module that was required to be LSB compliant). The entire thing went bust in 2015 due to lack of interest. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

hleszek 4y ago

You know what would be nice? To do the reverse: I provide a file path and you can determine in which package(s) it is present.

cbsks 4y ago
dpkg or apt-file can do this from the command line. Or you can use https://packages.ubuntu.com/ https://packages.ubuntu.com/ https://askubuntu.com/questions/481/how-do-i-find-the-package-that-provides-a-file https://askubuntu.com/questions/481/how-do-i-find-the-packag...
- itsmartapuntocm 4y ago
  DNF as well with “dnf provides <filename>”
oneshtein 4y ago
On rpm-based systems: `rpm -qf /path/to/file`. It's very helpful when I stare at a file and thinking, "WTF this file doing there?". These two commands help me immediately: `rpm -qif file` to show description of file package, `rpm -qlf file` to show list of other files in the same package.
loloquwowndueo 4y ago
dpkg -S /your/path Have fun :)

pabs3 4y ago

Does anyone use this regularly? What situations would it be useful in?

tpoacher 4y ago

how is this different / "better" than apt-file?