Debian PPAs (please no)

[somebodyelse]

Neil McGovern, our Great Leader, has made it a key goal of his tenure to introduce PPAs to Debian. He will talk about this exciting innovation at DebConf 15 in Heidelberg.

What is your opinion? Given the ill-feeling the adoption of systemd as default has caused, does Debian need more trouble from what is tantamount to Ubuntification?

Personally, I don't understand this burning need for laytist packidges (!!!!) or effeminate icon themes and think that encouraging people to install third party repos is counter to Debian's aim of stability.

In any case, if we did end up with this, it would be important not to call them PPAs, otherwise every noob and his wife will be mixing and matching Ubuntu/Debian PPAs and Debian will be mistaken for one of those pass-time OS's where the aim is not actually to get anything productive done but to kill boredom while you wait for a new cat video on YouTube to be uploaded.

[thanatos_incarnate]

"Woe me, we will get more of those dirty immigrants from Ubuntu land! It spells trouble, even though I've never seen the concept work! But the word PPA makes me vomit!"
Your racist RDU grampa

Who cares what they are called? They will basically be what PPAs are to Ubuntu -- more flexible and more lively backports. I could also imagine that PPAs on Debian are going to see more rigid control (i.e. people may be more likely to flag out-of-date PPAs than on Ubuntu).
And honestly, I don't give 3 doodoos what a n00b does to their system. Even now, the documentation clearly warns against such practice and even tells you how to simulate apt-get calls. It's their machine and their responsibility.

[Randicus]

Who cares what they are called?

A name can be very important. User Contributed Package (UCP), for example, could be similar or the same as a PPA, but even the dullest of the Buntards would be less likely to think it is an Ubuntu PPA.

I could also imagine that PPAs on Debian are going to see more rigid control (i.e. people may be more likely to flag out-of-date PPAs than on Ubuntu).

That is an assumption. The fact that a repository of such potentially insecure packages is being considered should encourage people to not assume anything.

What is your opinion? Given the ill-feeling the adoption of systemd as default has caused, does Debian need more trouble from what is tantamount to Ubuntification?

Trouble would be unlikely. Debian has been undergoing Ubuntification for a few years without generating a backlash. Most long-time users start with a minimal installation and ignore the Ubuntifacations, while newer users like the changes. That trend would likely continue if this idea is brought to fruition.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

if we did end up with this, it would be important not to call them PPAs, otherwise every noob and his wife will be mixing and matching Ubuntu/Debian PPAs

Actually, I can see the opposite happening -- at least users who attempt to add PPAs will see a clear "Debian" option and will use that rather than seeing an "Ubuntu" PPA and presuming that, because "Ubuntu is based on Debian", adding that will not cause problems.

[Roel63]

In regard to names, can we call mozilla.debian.net a PPA as well?

[somebodyelse]

No. Please don't.

[Roel63]

I wouldn't

[spacex]

Why not? You don't have to use them, as I assume that none of them will be enabled by default. And quite frankly, there are already a lot of PPA's for Debian. Some of them are called derivatives, and they may or may not be compatible with any given Debian release.

[Randicus]

Derivative distribution equals PPA?

[Deshapria]

Actually, I can see the opposite happening -- at least users who attempt to add PPAs will see a clear "Debian" option and will use that rather than seeing an "Ubuntu" PPA and presuming that, because "Ubuntu is based on Debian", adding that will not cause problems.

If you need a ppa from Ubuntu's Launchpad, you could download the deb package and have look inside using an Archive Manager. In the Debian folder, you'd see what controls the package, and in the other folders, for example usr, you'd see what it actually contains. Most times, all you have to do is copy and paste the needed files in respective folders in your system.

[Deshapria]

Linux refugee having fled the merciless onslaught of systemd and the Buntard horde to a haven of sanity.

Isn't Debian too a systemd distro?
What is the Buntard horde?

[Randicus]

Isn't Debian too a systemd distro?

Since you are quoting my signature, contemplate the word "fled". (Hint: It is not necessary to use Debian to post either here or on DUF.)

What is the Buntard horde?

Try putting buntard into the forum's search feature. If it does not yield results, there is something wrong with it.

[fireExit]

Actually, I can see the opposite happening -- at least users who attempt to add PPAs will see a clear "Debian" option and will use that rather than seeing an "Ubuntu" PPA and presuming that, because "Ubuntu is based on Debian", adding that will not cause problems.

If you need a ppa from Ubuntu's Launchpad, you could download the deb package and have look inside using an Archive Manager. In the Debian folder, you'd see what controls the package, and in the other folders, for example usr, you'd see what it actually contains. Most times, all you have to do is copy and paste the needed files in respective folders in your system.

Or you could it properly as it described in the Wiki

[spacex]

Derivative distribution equals PPA?

As far as security and compability goes, yes. There are no guarantees that there won't be compability and dependency-issues tracking Debian at the same time as you track the derivatives own repos.

[spacex]

Actually, I can see the opposite happening -- at least users who attempt to add PPAs will see a clear "Debian" option and will use that rather than seeing an "Ubuntu" PPA and presuming that, because "Ubuntu is based on Debian", adding that will not cause problems.

If you need a ppa from Ubuntu's Launchpad, you could download the deb package and have look inside using an Archive Manager. In the Debian folder, you'd see what controls the package, and in the other folders, for example usr, you'd see what it actually contains. Most times, all you have to do is copy and paste the needed files in respective folders in your system.

+1 Yes, that's what I do. But the drawback is of course that it will not automatically be upgraded.

[Deshapria]

Actually, I can see the opposite happening -- at least users who attempt to add PPAs will see a clear "Debian" option and will use that rather than seeing an "Ubuntu" PPA and presuming that, because "Ubuntu is based on Debian", adding that will not cause problems.

If you need a ppa from Ubuntu's Launchpad, you could download the deb package and have look inside using an Archive Manager. In the Debian folder, you'd see what controls the package, and in the other folders, for example usr, you'd see what it actually contains. Most times, all you have to do is copy and paste the needed files in respective folders in your system.

+1 Yes, that's what I do. But the drawback is of course that it will not automatically be upgraded.

That's the whole idea. It should never be automatically upgraded. One should never upgrade an app, if it works. When you open up a deb package, you'd find the dependencies, and most times the libraries are the same.

[spacex]

That's the whole idea. It should never be automatically upgraded. One should never upgrade an app, if it works. When you open up a deb package, you'd find the dependencies, and most times the libraries are the same.

Yes, and that's fine for me and you. But I'm not sure that it is fine for the average user. Their deducting skills are somewhat limited, and they don't necessarily automatically figure out what's causing something to stop working.
'
Just something as simple as a broken gtk-theme can display itself in ways that the average user never would link to a recent gtk-upgrade. In such cases, having the theme automatically upgraded for them so they don't end up with such a issue, would be a good thing. Otherwise you risk them messing up their system trying all sort of things, when a upgraded gtk-theme was all it took to fix the missing nm-applet or whatever....

[Deshapria]

That's the whole idea. It should never be automatically upgraded. One should never upgrade an app, if it works. When you open up a deb package, you'd find the dependencies, and most times the libraries are the same.

Yes, and that's fine for me and you. But I'm not sure that it is fine for the average user. Their deducting skills are somewhat limited, and they don't necessarily automatically figure out what's causing something to stop working.

Exactly.
The average user won't install vanilla Debian, maybe some user friendly remix of Debian. There are few around.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

There are few around.

@spacex has an excellent version in his signature

[/tmp]

That's the whole idea. It should never be automatically upgraded. One should never upgrade an app, if it works. When you open up a deb package, you'd find the dependencies, and most times the libraries are the same.

Yes, and that's fine for me and you. But I'm not sure that it is fine for the average user. Their deducting skills are somewhat limited, and they don't necessarily automatically figure out what's causing something to stop working.

Exactly.
The average user won't install vanilla Debian, maybe some user friendly remix of Debian. There are few around.

I disagree; I set up a vanilla Debian for my old neighbors and they love it. This is especially exciting considering they're not technical people.