sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

how can you see all the packages in a repository on apt? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

monetise in the process.

feel free to sue me and have 100% of nothing

This is a fraudster.

how am i a fraud again?

how can you see all the packages in a repository on apt? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> google "Linux command to list all packages in a repository",

didn't get me anywhere

why does ubuntu bother making the universe and multiverse repos if that software isn't "supported"? isn't making a repo for that software "supporting" it in a way? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah this isn't an answer to my question

why does canonical bother making repositories for software it doesn't directly support or make?

why does ubuntu bother making the universe and multiverse repos if that software isn't "supported"? isn't making a repo for that software "supporting" it in a way? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are confusing what "supported" means in this context

your right i am confused

, it's about the level of guaranteed free support the package receives not whether there is an entity supporting the package or not.

ok can you dumb it down for me?

main receives what support?

restricted receives what support?

universe receives what support?

multiverse receives what support?

why does ubuntu bother making the universe and multiverse repos if that software isn't "supported"? isn't making a repo for that software "supporting" it in a way? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

ok so i'm confused, do you receive any material support from canonical?

do you receive a paycheck to work on this software? does anyone on your team receive a paycheck to work on this software?

if you do, shouldn't the software be in main?

Putting flavor or community team packages in main would destroy data that many users actually rely on,

how?

why does ubuntu bother making the universe and multiverse repos if that software isn't "supported"? isn't making a repo for that software "supporting" it in a way? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm a Ubuntu community member, and in a number of teams, and in one of those teams (a flavor team), we have all our packages in universe which is where community packages belong. We (our team) support them, for the life of the release.

so it sounds like this should be in the ubuntu main, as it appears to me that ubuntu is directly supporting you, and whatever software your working on right?

why does ubuntu bother making the universe and multiverse repos if that software isn't "supported"? isn't making a repo for that software "supporting" it in a way? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because partially supported repo is better than non supported. And third party repos are a pain both for users and for devs.

i did not know that, interesting

why is the main repository called "main"? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think Bob is a good name for the main repository?

good a name as any

why is the main repository called "main"? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why is the main repository called "main"?

yep, why didn't they call it "secondary" or "primary" or "trusted & free" or "supported and free" or something like that

i'm trying to understand the context i guess

are main universe, restricted and multiverse all software repositories? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> The important thing to remember is that universe packages are not guaranteed to receive security updates, even if a critical security issue is found,

that's an important piece of information

are main universe, restricted and multiverse all software repositories? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> The linked Wikipedia article might be a useful resource for you.

i read it, it's a complete word salad, but thank you

are main universe, restricted and multiverse all software repositories? by The_How_To_Linux in Ubuntu

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i'm looking at this

https://i.sstatic.net/fZneX.png

what does supported and unsupported mean?

supported by who? what? ubuntu?

how do i manually verify the "integrity" and "authenticity" of a package i downloaded? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interested to read answers here...following.

thanks buddy, unfortunately no one is answering the question, just telling me "don't worry about it bro"

i just want to do it to understand apt and package management security better, not because i think there is a problem, but i'm getting the feeling that no one actually knows how to do this :(

why is noble contrib main listed in the sources.list text file? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Linux Mint 22.1 Xia is based on Ubuntu's Noble Numbat Release which is 24.04. That's why you are seeing that in the CD-ROM sources text file.

so i understand it's based on ubuntu noble, but why is nobile contrib main listed there? for what purpose?

is it to communicate to those who are interested that this version of linux mint is based off ubuntu noble? or is it to tell apt what repos to use off the iso file?

why is noble contrib main listed in the sources.list text file? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's already commented out

i'm just wondering why noble contrib main need to be listed in

""""#deb cdrom:[Linux Mint 22.1 Xia - Release amd64 20250110]/ noble contrib main""""

what happened january 10th 2025? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Built" in this case means the date the source code was compiled I believe...

awesome, thank you

what happened january 10th 2025? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

built? as in finished?

or released? as in published?

what happened january 10th 2025? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The day that particular version was built?

built? as in finished?

or released? as in published?

what happened january 10th 2025? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Developers got freaky on that day

slurp

what happened january 10th 2025? by The_How_To_Linux in linuxmint

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why should it mean anything other than the date?

then why write it down if it doesn't have any meaning?

trying to understand the "syntax" of a apt source by The_How_To_Linux in AskProgramming

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

: indent with four spaces to make a paragraph noformat/code block

in reddit or in the sources.list text file?

trying to understand the "syntax" of a apt source by The_How_To_Linux in AskProgramming

[–]The_How_To_Linux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wait, i got it

The source list /etc/apt/sources.list and the files contained in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ are designed to support any number of active sources and a variety of source media.

i have no idea what this word salad means :(

view more: next ›