2020 and still a thing, which let me move to Manjaro instead of
maintaining PPA's/repositories and requesting LTS backport requests on
launchpad.
Btw.
Snap and flatpack are security nightmares like the windows DLL hell.
With these developers can rely on old, buggy, security violated 3rd party
this should be addressed by Snappy:
https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves
I am the developer of Asunder (an application), and a frustrated user
pointed me to this bug. The issues discussed in this bug very much apply
to me. I've been carefully going through the various options described
in this bug, this one especially looks promising though it's not
entirely clear to
I can't agree more!!!
As Mark said on his blog,
[quote]Separating platform from apps would enhance agility.
Currently, we make one giant release of the platform and ALL APPS. That
means an enormous amount of interdependence, and an enormous bottleneck
that depends largely on a single
This has nothing to do with software-center itself. The only way you are
going to make this better is to get the upstreams to do the requisite
packaging work and make the packages available as updates through
software-center by publishing them via the web site for managing one's
applications
** Changed in: software-center (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) = Nick Thiemann (thiemann-nick)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged
** Changed in: software-center (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Nick Thiemann (thiemann-nick) = Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged
Please have a look at AppImageKit, which allows to package applications
for multiple distributions following the 1 app = 1 file philosophy.
Since it needs no support from the distribution, it can run already
today on Fedora, Ubuntu and the likes. There are some example (32-bit)
AppImages at
well good news that they might ditch the point releases for a rolling or
semi-rolling model:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTI4MjE
sounds very much like they could do it like chakra does:
http://chakra-linux.org/wiki/index.php/Half-Rolling_Release_Model
or post prior to
Further to this discussion above regarding separating Application / User
land applications from core Ubuntu components I would like to draw the
maintainer of this bug report and colleagues tasked with working on it
to solution Bodhi Linux currently uses.
http://www.bodhilinux.com/about_bodhi.php
I'm also confident that Ubuntu and MPT are aware of the seriousness of
this problem (UDS N Monday plenary: Getting great applications on
Ubuntu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT5fUcMUfYg ).
While the lack of separation between system and application parts was noticed
as problem several times and
(John Mills, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but that comment does not
help anyone work on this bug -- it is pure noise. Please restrict
comments to information that helps solve the problem, and resist the
urge to reply to this comment. Thanks.)
--
You received this bug notification because you
I just wanted to add these comments from OMG Ubuntu to this thread as I
really think this shows the degree of frustration that exists around
this bug. The subscribers to this bug repport would obviously like to
see a resolution as this both benefits us and Canonical. How can we now
escalate this
@Aleve, when you see a newer version of Libreoffice in a newer release
(e.g. Quantal/Raring) that you want, please run the command
requestbackport from package ubuntu-dev-tools. See
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports#Requesting_a_Backport
Then, in theory at least, the new versions should be
@Marius Kotsbak (mariusko)
The backport team seems never get sufficient members working on backports and
it hardly will in the future. The backport volunteers are never the right
people to package applications for the operating system. Ubuntu should really
consider motivating software
Actually anyone can do the backport, and if it is tested, I guess the
chance of it getting into the backports higher. There is a command to do
it automatically (in package ubuntu-dev-tools), and in many cases just
a rebuild is sufficient:
LibreOffice is stuck on version 3.6.02 (using the LibreOffice PPA) for
12.04.1. Version 4.0 is around the corner, full of bug fixes and much
needed features. No one willing to stick to the LTS stable release will
be able to use it.
The LibreOffice PPA maintainers say the new LibreOffice is being
Reading this bug report, I want to thank Matthew Paul Thomas
https://launchpad.net/~mpt for his dedication to improving the Ubuntu
experience. I hope this situation improves with time. On Fedora 17,
users are upgraded to LibreOffice version 3.5.7, but Ubuntu 12.04.1
users are stuck at LibreOffice
Hi MPT,
thank you for the update :
'2012-09-05: 376 applications are published in MyApps and 36 in Extras.
So over 10% of Ubuntu applications now be updated without upgrading the
OS.'
So we have now have 10% of applications that can be updated, but more
importantly we still have 90 % that
** Description changed:
It is easier to upgrade to the newest stable versions of most
applications -- even open source applications -- on a proprietary
operating system than it is on Ubuntu.
Two examples:
1. Wait for a new version of LibreOffice to be released.
What happens:
YaY!
finally more concrete progress !!
http://www.iloveubuntu.net/ubuntu-developers-published-new-automatic-
third-party-app-uploading-process-ubuntu-software-center
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
We want latest stable release of every software or package via Ubuntu
software Center or Update manger because new software often contains
many bug fixes and new features! Please fix it soon. I am fed up by
adding 100 PPAs or more for every softwares updates..
--
You received this bug
I noticed the new backports feature in 12.04. Is there any easy way of
requesting backports? Filing a bug at launchpad is not so friendly. I
suggest implementing it in software center. Any progress in this bug?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
Well, the bottleneck here is probably not reporting requests for
backports, but the manpower to do the actual backports, if it can't be
done by the third party projects themselves or somehow done
automatically or imported from e.g Debian.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
@ Marius Kotsbak (mariusko):
I agree packaging of desktop apps really should be work of third party
developers. In order to reduce their work , I think half-year release is too
frequent and we should reccommend only LTS versions to developers to support
and new users to use. Users and devs
Just voicing my support for fixing this bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading
entire OS
To manage
Gentlemen,
Is there an update on the status of this bug? Has anything changed with
the status of the request since 12.04 was released?
This crucial topic has been brought up once again on omgbuntu for the
release of GIMP 2.8.2:
** Tags removed: ca-escalated
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading
entire OS
To manage notifications
** Tags added: ca-escalate
** Tags removed: ca-escalate
** Tags added: ca-escalated
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably
Applications in Software Center now are mostly apps that users want to keep up
with the latest version. For these apps in Software Center. I suggest using a
similar system like bundles in Chakra Linux. Those bundles are one-click
installable archive like in Windows or Mac. And these bundles
tl;dr: decoupling app updates from system updates is so basic I don't
know why any project leader would doubt this is a bare need for any
desktop to even have a slight chance of succeeding.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
Matthew Paul Thomas the solution to this lays all the way back to when
Sun Microsystems Designed ELF. This exact problem was considered. Most
Linux distributions have failed to use Elf properly so causing this
problem.
Linux ld.so most distributions use is called ld-linux.so. People
forget
Please note that for 12.04 we have a new feature that allows viewing/installing
software from *-backports.
This will allow the user to opt into the latest software version (if its
availalbe in *-backports) easily.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Hi Michael,
This is a great start but will this mean that more applications are
going to be back ported in the future? If the selection is still very
small then I don't see much of a benefit? If the back ports can be
synced against the newest versions of software in the future releases
of Ubuntu
** Changed in: software-center (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed = In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably
Bjørn: which change do you refer to that is supposed to solve this?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading
** Changed in: software-center (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress = Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably
@ Matthew Paul Thomas: Hi Matt, as this bug is assigned to you can you
provide an update as to where we are? In your experience will there be
any differences in the 12:04 release? I think nerdy_kid is spot on in
his suggestions (although not entirely sure about the review process).
But I think
nerdy_kid, you are now describing MyApps and the Application Review
Board, respectively. :-) They will need a lot of process improvements
before they can scale to the point where they replace anything.
** No longer affects: null
** No longer affects: software-center
--
You received this bug
nerdy_kid, you are basically describing Ubuntu backports.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports But backports are not used
nearly often enough to fix this bug, because (1) issuing them still
requires becoming (a) an Ubuntu member, (b) an Ubuntu developer, and
(c) a member of the Ubuntu
@mpt is correct.
Having a well known PPA with a good reputation is better than being an
official project member. You get most of the benefits of being a
project member with none of the overhead costs of officially joining.
The community is familiar and comfortable with using Launchpad to get
I think there is no one fix for this. But a combination of the
backports, PPAs, the USC updates UI, myApps, more promotion right in the
software center, crowd-sourcing and a project like getdeb which states
that UbuntuBackports project has a limited scope in comparison. GetDeb
extends the official
@mpt
If I understand correctly, the backports repo contains new versions of
software already included in the main Ubuntu repos. What I am
suggesting is:
1: Do away with the Ubuntu Backports repo entirely.
2: Create two separate repos: one for Ubuntu applications (and perhaps even
commercial
The subtle and disruptive suggestion in this thread is that the
backports and universe sections are unnecessary legacy baggage, and
certain important things like the web browser and office suite should
not be in the main section.
From the customer perspective, application software is the profit
I reported a duplicate of this bug. Just sharing my idea for a possible
solution.
Perhaps splitting the Ubuntu repos into two -- one for the Ubuntu Core
(kernel, desktop, system libraries, etc) and one for the applications.
The applications repo could then be continually updated as developers
I will put in a comment from a non-techie source. I'm a fairly new user.
I'm not a programmer. I really like Ubuntu but it seems to want to keep
'non-programmers' out. I see phrases here like 'look for binaries' or
'back'ported', etc. The average person does not know what these things
mean. And if
A complete fix to this bug would also require adding some features that
Ubuntu/APT are still missing as seen on this comparison:
http://0install.net/comparison.html
These should improve the situation for developers and users by leaps and
bounds. Making ubuntu the most competitive.
Maybe even
@Mike O'Donnell (mikeodonnell)
about the backports part, i think you're speaking of Automatic
Backports
so, if you check the blueprints they are trying to introduce something
different: NotAutomatic Backports.
Correct me if am wrong, but i think those will not be updating or
affecting your
@manny
My concern is not having the aps needed for security or stability of the
system a newbie has configured, or in the case I made, the ability to be
sure a backup app (is/are) available in the newest and functional
format, for a LTS; without having to jump through unknown and possibly
** Description changed:
- It's hard to imagine that this could be true, but it is easier to
- upgrade to the newest stable versions of popular free and open source
- software (referred to from here on as FOSS) in proprietary operating
- systems, than it is to do so on Ubuntu.
+ It is easier to
Ok, my 2 cents worth, from an new, casual user's perspective. I agree
this is a bug.
History:
I bought my first computer 3 years ago, and struggled along with Vista
for six months, until I was infested with the conficker worm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker after going on an online
@Alexander
Stability is taken into consideration (for example i doubt they will
offer alpha or beta software). But the point here is to give users
choice.
Like in every other OS, the user is used to choosing which version he
wants / needs.
He/she can either stay with what he has, update to the
Hi all,
I completely agree with this bug report, for example, if I started using
Windows XP in 2001 I could still easily install a new build of Firefox,
Open Office, Inkscape etc. But with Ubuntu because the backports are not
great I have to either compile the source myself or look for binaries.
@John Mills
could not agree with you more on this.
I hope some one with authority can really take a loot at this issue.
MPT is looking into this issue and am sure he's very aware of the
situation.
The NotAutomatic backports seems like the first step towards a
solution.
The second step can
Well I don't think the key point is to be up to the very date, like a
rolling release, but update if the newer version is considerably stable
and well only add, not cause unstable behaviour.
For example, Libre office right now has two versions on their site: 3.3.4 and
3.4.3
The former is
** Description changed:
- It's hard to imagine that this could be true, but it is easier to
+ It's hard to imagine that this could be true, but it is easier to
upgrade to the newest stable versions of popular free and open source
software (referred to from here on as FOSS) in proprietary
So, this is not a bug, but rather a proposal to dramatically realign
some core principles about how we develop software.
of course it is a bug. If it feels bad, weired, confusing, old...
whatever... then it is a bug. The intention of that kind of release is
good, but in practice people like to
** Project changed: launchpad = null
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading
entire OS
To manage
Similar to the OP or better explained:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2816/9
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
Title:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves
** Changed in: software-center (Ubuntu)
Status: Opinion = In Progress
** Changed in: software-center (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) = Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)
--
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading entire OS
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
This is not a bug, this is the part of the Ubuntu way of handling
updates to applications. The default for users is that their experience
does not change unless and until they upgrade to a new release. This is
very intentional and this stability is part of the core value
proposition for users.
In
For applications packaged by Ubuntu developers, this is covered by backports.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
For applications packaged by their own developers, this is now specified
and being implemented for 10.10 under the direction of Rick Spencer.
You could rewrite it for Thunderbird...?
--
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading entire OS
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing
** Changed in: soyuz
Status: New = Invalid
--
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading entire OS
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs
Firefox has now become a bad example, because it is being special-cased
by the Desktop team. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-
announce/2010-June/000719.html So this bug report would benefit from
rewriting with one or two different examples. (chromium-browser would be
a candidate,
65 matches
Mail list logo
