There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Why does nobody maintain PPAs anymore?

When I first started using Linux 15 years ago (Ubuntu) , if there was some software you wanted that wasn’t in the distro’s repos you can probably bet that there was a PPA you could add to your system in order to get it.

Seems that nowadays this is basically dead. Some people provide appimage, snap or flatpak but these don’t integrate well into the system at all and don’t integrate with the system updater.

I use Spek for audio analysis and yesterday it told me I didn’t have permission to read a file, I a directory that I owned, that I definitely have permission to read. Took me ages to realise it was because Spek was a snap.

I get that these new package formats provide all the dependencies an app needs, but PPAs felt more centralised and integrated in terms of system updates and the system itself. Have they just fallen out of favour?

arran4 ,

Most of the reasons mentioned, and also they are a bit out of the way to install and setup, you don’t get much feedback as per users using them. As they integrated with the OS you have to search for them as a user, and you have advertise them as a someone packaging. Every extra step creates friction which ads up. It feels like a solution based in the concept of maintaining SEP. – Plus people aren’t exactly paid to do this.

MentalEdge ,
@MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz avatar

Because they only work on one distro/package manager.

Distributing software is simply transitioning to work in a distro-agnostic way. It’s only a matter of time until distros start updating flatpaks along with system packages. Many already do.

And some apps distributed as appimages self-update. (RPCS3 for example)

Not to mention that Ubuntu itself has basically ditched apt for snap.

nelov ,

PPA’s are the reason why I stopped using Debian-based distros about 8 years ago.

For me, those have been the primary source of pain and anger. Back then, almost every dude had a PPA. Keeping track was hard. Not only that, but often those were full of other unrelated software or libs. The outcome was broken systems left and right.

MonkderDritte ,

PPAs are not for debian-based, they are Ubuntu-only.

0x0 ,

Distributing software is simply transitioning to work in a distro-agnostic way. It’s only a matter of time until distros start updating flatpaks along with system packages. Many already do.

I guess Canonical being money-driven would be wanting to cut costs so reducing packagers is a viable way. So what if many packages ship the same lib? It’s all isolated and drive space is not an issue, right?

Suoko ,
@Suoko@feddit.it avatar

I think packaging is being already automated a lot today’s

0x0 ,

It is, but snap helps Canonical become the walled garden it wants to be, so let’s bitch about how troublesome it is to do packages for all architectures omg what a downer…

PotatoesFall ,

snaps (and if installed, flatpaks) should integrate very well into an ubuntu system. Does ubuntu really not update flatpaks and snaps through the normal update manager or whatever? Fedora definitely does.

Whayle ,

Both are bloated, but I'll take flatpaks, as snaps have given me a lot of problems on multiple machines. I now just remove it entirely.

Guenther_Amanita ,

Because it’s outdated. They are a lot of work and can cause package conflicts or errors, making the whole system less reliable.

If you need something, that’s not in your package manager, then use Distrobox and create an Arch container, and use the AUR for example.
You can export the program after installing, and it integrates better into your system.

By doing that, the devs have to do the work only once and you will have less problems.

0x0 ,

The devs only do the work once, it’s the packagers that deal with mutability.

TankieTanuki ,

It’s all about the AUR now btw i use arch

TeddyKila ,

Showing noobs the AUR borders on active sabotage.

TankieTanuki ,

yea

possiblylinux127 ,

Way to sketchy for me

mactan ,

whenever somebody brings up some terribly ancient Debian/buntu distro with outdated packages we end up having them use a .deb instead since the ppa is long gone and it’s been fine. wild that they’re often stuck on 4 year old packages though

sabreW4K3 ,
@sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al avatar

To answer this question, you need to look at the fact we live in a capitalist society.

What does that mean? It means that at every turn people are trying to make money.

How is that relevant to Linux? Well it’s two prong. First you need to look at the fact that the people at Canonical has Microsoft envy and so want to make money. Secondly, you have to look at the fact that the people Ubuntu have Microsoft envy and so designed their walled garden in a manner that uses Microsoft as inspiration.

Okay…? So if you’re building a walled garden and the smarter people have no desire for the disk space bloat that said walled garden comes at a cost of, how do you get them to move over other than making the sane, superior and slegacy (shush, I wanted the alliteration) way untenable.

So what am I saying? It’s all about shitty walled gardens and inferior software design, coupled with a lack of resources to maintain applications.

0x0 ,

I don’t get the down-votes, Canonical does want to become a walled garden. Money talks.

mcforest ,

But is this comment really an answer to this question or just a rant about Canonical?

0x0 ,

Both, really, PPAs are an Ubuntu thing and Ubuntu’s moving towards becoming a walled garden, which includes snap.

jmcs ,

Probably because PPAs only work on Ubuntu and there are more Linux distros and even then it meant having to build and test a package for a couple of different Ubuntu versions.

Jesus_666 ,

Also, Ubuntu is moving towards using snaps for everything so they’re pretty much the successor to PPAs.

jmcs ,

Until they drop it for flatpak as they did all NIH-driven products.

eveninghere ,

Acting I thought they dropped snap in favor of fkatpak finally.

possiblylinux127 ,

I doubt they will. Anyway I think they have experienced a massive community brain drain at this point. People packed up there files and left.

acockworkorange ,

PPAs work for all Debian based distros, no?

jmcs ,

Theoretically they can, in practice it’s less than ideal. And that doesn’t solve all the other distros or the combinatory explosion of supporting several distros and versions.

Flatpaks on the other hand give you a single runtime of your choice to worry about (though they still have lots of cons too).

acockworkorange ,

Oh I’m not defending PPAs at all, I’m glad we’ve moved past them, I just thought it was a Debian tech that got boosted by Ubuntu. I see I was in error. Thanks for clarifying!

possiblylinux127 ,

Debian focuses on stability. They tell you not to add any extra repos ever as it introduces untested software.

acockworkorange ,

Encouraging something and disabling something are two different things. They have Flatpak in stable, which is untested software. That’s not why they didn’t use PPAs.

lord_ryvan ,

And Ubuntu derivates like Mint and many others, that’s actually a big market in Ubuntu terms

possiblylinux127 ,

But you have no way of knowing if a PPA will break Mint, Ubuntu or what ever else.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •