4 ms·
With malware reportedly uploaded by random people to AUR, I will stick to Debian. A good thing about proprietary OS is that, they are responsible if their repo
by aborsy 1y ago
With malware reportedly uploaded by random people to AUR, I will stick to Debian.
A good thing about proprietary OS is that, they are responsible if their repos are infected.
Are packages carefully reviewed by gentoo?
- bravetraveler 1y agoPPAs are your AUR
- brnt 1y agoAre you confusing Debian and Ubuntu?
- bravetraveler 1y ago> Are you confusing Debian and Ubuntu? No, you're confusing exclusivity. https://launchpad.net/debian/+ppas https://launchpad.net/debian/+ppas
- brnt 1y agoNo, I know PPA's are just a way of telling apt about a repository. What I mean is that Debian does not support adding PPA by default island I frankly don't hear of many Debian users doing that. Flatpak/-hub is much more common.
- bravetraveler 1y agoI don't know what to tell you/say, it's a completely supported - and utilized - method for distributing software. For both Debian and Ubuntu. "By default" is completely irrelevant, let me explain. First, somewhat sarcastically, I can give you that support right here. "echo ... | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/...". Go forth and prosper. Now, more seriously/importantly, this is for distributing user-supplied software. The point I was originally making is that anyone can leverage this, it's not representative of the Distribution. AUR, PPA, COPR (for your RHEL derivative of choice), OBS, whatever. The malware is the responsibility of the user who published it, not the Distribution maintainers. Aside: I'm deliberately trying use 'distribution' as a proper noun/capitalize where appropriate... in terms of the composite of software we know as Debian or Ubuntu, not an individual release like the 'software-properties-common' package or malware: what started this thread. Back on topic: this is firmly down the path of customization. The fact that you don't get 'add-apt-repository' for free is, again, irrelevant. PPAs will distribute (heh) Deb packages for either Distribution. If we're working off anecdotes, I hear about far more Sources [repo] files being made on Debian than Flatpak installations. Now what do we do.
- brnt 1y agoDefaults matter. By default, Debian can't add PPA's.
- bravetraveler 1y agoYes it can, I just showed how one might. A repo is a repo. A PPA is a repo. What? The 'default' you're talking about is a CLI that simplifies two steps, one of which is optional [signature]. It can be done with a shell/coreutils or whatever equivalent. Again, I showed my work. Anyway, let's toss Flatpak, then. Debian only offers it, not by default. Just like it only offers the ability to write to '/etc/apt/sources.list.d/'. I'm done going back/forth on this, we're so far off the point. Use the distribution you want, be mindful of the software you install. Regardless of who wrote/built the manifests or hosted the artifacts. Bagging on Arch for the AUR makes as much sense as <the public packaging service> for <your favorite distribution>. I already named several, it's all user-generated content. In absolutely no way does it represent the actual product/distribution. The users publishing and consuming carry the responsibility.
- amano-kenji 1y agoThe official and semi-official overlays are reviewed, but third party overlays aren't. Each third party overlay is maintained by one person, so you have to trust the person behind each third party overlay.