Let's update...
-
Really should keep that PPA use to a minimum. They're potentially a source of not just instability but possible malware as you're putting a lot of trust in whoever maintains that resource.
When I use Debian/Ubuntu, I prefer installing missing/outdated software from Nix package manager or Flatpaks.
This way, I can keep a stable core, while being able to enjoy all the latest versions of the apps that I need.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I find debian more stable than arch, especially when updating.
-
This post did not contain any content.
presses the big blue 'update' button in GNOME Software in Fedora
-
This post did not contain any content.
ujust update -
This post did not contain any content.
I saw someone on ml point out that
updateshould come beforeupgrade -
I saw someone on ml point out that
updateshould come beforeupgradeupdatepulls the metadata about your packages (to see if there are new versions, and which), whileupgradeapplies the patches. -
updatepulls the metadata about your packages (to see if there are new versions, and which), whileupgradeapplies the patches.I've never understood why the update part isn't included in the upgrade command, since upgrade is useless without it
-
ujust updateIsn't that just
topgrade -
Isn't that just
topgradeI'm honestly not sure. https://github.com/ublue-os/bazzite/blob/main/system_files/desktop/shared/usr/share/ublue-os/just/10-update.just
The bazzite motd says use
ujust -
OP hasn't used AUR much
You don't even have to use the aur are to have breaking changes. Most recently they changed how vlc was packaged. And broke it causing a lot of problems for users.
-
You don't even have to use the aur are to have breaking changes. Most recently they changed how vlc was packaged. And broke it causing a lot of problems for users.
That's pretty rare. I ran arch for years and my only issues were from AUR or trying to update extremely out of date machines.
-
Really should keep that PPA use to a minimum. They're potentially a source of not just instability but possible malware as you're putting a lot of trust in whoever maintains that resource.
Especially because there is no way to limit the packages installed from a PPA AFAIK. If the PPA has a "new" version of NGINX, or of libc, or of Wayland - you get it, too!!!
-
Especially because there is no way to limit the packages installed from a PPA AFAIK. If the PPA has a "new" version of NGINX, or of libc, or of Wayland - you get it, too!!!
Absolutely. Ideally you should have zero PPAs. There’s definitely a cost for using this feature. Most commonly it comes in the form of instability when you end up with incompatible or broken packages because the maintainer wasn’t playing an active enough role. YMMV!
-
That's pretty rare. I ran arch for years and my only issues were from AUR or trying to update extremely out of date machines.
I've run arch for years as well. It happens nearly yearly. I've had updates break completely several times. Partial updates. That required significant manual intervention. Etc Etc Etc. Meanwhile my Debian and fedora systems haven't had a hitch in years.
-
Especially because there is no way to limit the packages installed from a PPA AFAIK. If the PPA has a "new" version of NGINX, or of libc, or of Wayland - you get it, too!!!
You can set packages from a particular repo to a lower priority so that they are only installed when you expressly ask for them
-
You can set packages from a particular repo to a lower priority so that they are only installed when you expressly ask for them
How does one do that, Wise Zorro?
-
I've run arch for years as well. It happens nearly yearly. I've had updates break completely several times. Partial updates. That required significant manual intervention. Etc Etc Etc. Meanwhile my Debian and fedora systems haven't had a hitch in years.
I've moved on to gentoo. All the customization and if something breaks I can be sure it's my fault.
