Public bug reported:

apt sources conventionally use a fixed release name. But this causes
both adding repos as well as upgrading an unnecessarily painful
experience. For instance, adding a simple package requires adding the
keys with `apt-key` and then adding the repo, and then apt update/apt
install. 3 different steps also complicate install scripts. Distros like
fedora, RHEL handle this rather gracefully with `releasever` which makes
for a consistent experience.

Similarly, updating ubuntu on desktops every 6 months causes unnecessary
waste of time, having to upgrade the sources with say "bionic" to
"disco", and such in the apt sources. Currently, ubuntu attempts this on
a superficial level by just changing swapping out the release names for
what it can, and disabling the others. This is both fragile and causes
an inconsistent upgrade experience.

I think it's time that this is simplified, and potentially handled by
apt utilising release variables and names from `/etc/os-release`.

In case of upgrades, I personally think it's completely okay to use a
releasever variable based external repo that doesn't exist yet (and
might start working once upstream catches up), rather than just disable
it. However, using ubuntu release models, releasever ideally has the
option of utilising an option of LTS, so some external packages that
only does this conservatively on LTS can target a repo source url that
does just that (while this seems fragile technically, practically it
works as most LTS repos work rather well)

In case of Debian, the above problem is actually not as magnified due to
slower release and consistent names like `stable`, `oldstable` and
`testing`, which makes upgrading not as big a task, however affects
ubuntu release models far more significantly.

I'm marking this as a bug, since I think this is a significant UX dent
for today's distros - so much that other most significant other distros
don't have such a painful experience.

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 19.04
Package: apt 1.8.1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.0.0-20.21-generic 5.0.8
Uname: Linux 5.0.0-20-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.20.10-0ubuntu27
Architecture: amd64
CurrentDesktop: GNOME
Date: Sun Jul  7 13:05:04 2019
InstallationDate: Installed on 2019-06-23 (13 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 19.04 "Disco Dingo" - Release amd64 (20190416)
SourcePackage: apt
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
modified.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: [modified]
mtime.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: 2019-06-29T23:49:14.971566

** Affects: apt
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

** Affects: apt (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

** Affects: apt (Debian)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New


** Tags: amd64 apport-bug disco

** Also affects: apt
   Importance: Undecided
       Status: New

** Also affects: apt (Debian)
   Importance: Undecided
       Status: New

** Description changed:

  apt sources conventionally use a fixed release name. But this causes
  both adding repos as well as upgrading an unnecessarily painful
  experience. For instance, adding a simple package requires adding the
  keys with `apt-key` and then adding the repo, and then apt update/apt
  install. 3 different steps also complicate install scripts. Distros like
  fedora, RHEL handle this rather gracefully with `releasever` which makes
  for a consistent experience.
  
  Similarly, updating ubuntu on desktops every 6 months causes unnecessary
  waste of time, having to upgrade the sources with say "bionic" to
  "disco", and such in the apt sources. Currently, ubuntu attempts this on
  a superficial level by just changing swapping out the release names for
  what it can, and disabling the others. This is both fragile and causes
  an inconsistent upgrade experience.
  
  I think it's time that this is simplified, and potentially handled by
  apt utilising release variables and names from `/etc/os-release`.
  
  In case of upgrades, I personally think it's completely okay to use a
  releasever variable based external repo that doesn't exist yet (and
  might start working once upstream catches up), rather than just disable
  it. However, using ubuntu release models, releasever ideally has the
  option of utilising an option of LTS, so some external packages that
  only does this conservatively on LTS can target a repo source url that
  does just that (while this seems fragile technically, practically it
  works as most LTS repos work rather well)
  
+ In case of Debian, the above problem is actually not as magnified due to 
+ slower release and consistent names like `stable`, `oldstable` and `testing`, 
which makes upgrading not big a task, however affects ubuntu
+ release models far more significantly.  
+ 
+ 
  ProblemType: Bug
  DistroRelease: Ubuntu 19.04
  Package: apt 1.8.1
  ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.0.0-20.21-generic 5.0.8
  Uname: Linux 5.0.0-20-generic x86_64
  ApportVersion: 2.20.10-0ubuntu27
  Architecture: amd64
  CurrentDesktop: GNOME
  Date: Sun Jul  7 13:05:04 2019
  InstallationDate: Installed on 2019-06-23 (13 days ago)
  InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 19.04 "Disco Dingo" - Release amd64 (20190416)
  SourcePackage: apt
  UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
  modified.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: [modified]
  mtime.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: 2019-06-29T23:49:14.971566

** Description changed:

  apt sources conventionally use a fixed release name. But this causes
  both adding repos as well as upgrading an unnecessarily painful
  experience. For instance, adding a simple package requires adding the
  keys with `apt-key` and then adding the repo, and then apt update/apt
  install. 3 different steps also complicate install scripts. Distros like
  fedora, RHEL handle this rather gracefully with `releasever` which makes
  for a consistent experience.
  
  Similarly, updating ubuntu on desktops every 6 months causes unnecessary
  waste of time, having to upgrade the sources with say "bionic" to
  "disco", and such in the apt sources. Currently, ubuntu attempts this on
  a superficial level by just changing swapping out the release names for
  what it can, and disabling the others. This is both fragile and causes
  an inconsistent upgrade experience.
  
  I think it's time that this is simplified, and potentially handled by
  apt utilising release variables and names from `/etc/os-release`.
  
  In case of upgrades, I personally think it's completely okay to use a
  releasever variable based external repo that doesn't exist yet (and
  might start working once upstream catches up), rather than just disable
  it. However, using ubuntu release models, releasever ideally has the
  option of utilising an option of LTS, so some external packages that
  only does this conservatively on LTS can target a repo source url that
  does just that (while this seems fragile technically, practically it
  works as most LTS repos work rather well)
  
- In case of Debian, the above problem is actually not as magnified due to 
- slower release and consistent names like `stable`, `oldstable` and `testing`, 
which makes upgrading not big a task, however affects ubuntu
- release models far more significantly.  
+ In case of Debian, the above problem is actually not as magnified due to
+ slower release and consistent names like `stable`, `oldstable` and
+ `testing`, which makes upgrading not as big a task, however affects
+ ubuntu release models far more significantly.
  
+ I'm marking this as a bug, since I think this is a significant UX dent
+ for today's distros - so much that other most significant other distros
+ don't have such a painful experience.
  
  ProblemType: Bug
  DistroRelease: Ubuntu 19.04
  Package: apt 1.8.1
  ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.0.0-20.21-generic 5.0.8
  Uname: Linux 5.0.0-20-generic x86_64
  ApportVersion: 2.20.10-0ubuntu27
  Architecture: amd64
  CurrentDesktop: GNOME
  Date: Sun Jul  7 13:05:04 2019
  InstallationDate: Installed on 2019-06-23 (13 days ago)
  InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 19.04 "Disco Dingo" - Release amd64 (20190416)
  SourcePackage: apt
  UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
  modified.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: [modified]
  mtime.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: 2019-06-29T23:49:14.971566

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1835645

Title:
  apt sources should be able to understand release variables

Status in APT:
  New
Status in apt package in Ubuntu:
  New
Status in apt package in Debian:
  New

Bug description:
  apt sources conventionally use a fixed release name. But this causes
  both adding repos as well as upgrading an unnecessarily painful
  experience. For instance, adding a simple package requires adding the
  keys with `apt-key` and then adding the repo, and then apt update/apt
  install. 3 different steps also complicate install scripts. Distros
  like fedora, RHEL handle this rather gracefully with `releasever`
  which makes for a consistent experience.

  Similarly, updating ubuntu on desktops every 6 months causes
  unnecessary waste of time, having to upgrade the sources with say
  "bionic" to "disco", and such in the apt sources. Currently, ubuntu
  attempts this on a superficial level by just changing swapping out the
  release names for what it can, and disabling the others. This is both
  fragile and causes an inconsistent upgrade experience.

  I think it's time that this is simplified, and potentially handled by
  apt utilising release variables and names from `/etc/os-release`.

  In case of upgrades, I personally think it's completely okay to use a
  releasever variable based external repo that doesn't exist yet (and
  might start working once upstream catches up), rather than just
  disable it. However, using ubuntu release models, releasever ideally
  has the option of utilising an option of LTS, so some external
  packages that only does this conservatively on LTS can target a repo
  source url that does just that (while this seems fragile technically,
  practically it works as most LTS repos work rather well)

  In case of Debian, the above problem is actually not as magnified due
  to slower release and consistent names like `stable`, `oldstable` and
  `testing`, which makes upgrading not as big a task, however affects
  ubuntu release models far more significantly.

  I'm marking this as a bug, since I think this is a significant UX dent
  for today's distros - so much that other most significant other
  distros don't have such a painful experience.

  ProblemType: Bug
  DistroRelease: Ubuntu 19.04
  Package: apt 1.8.1
  ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.0.0-20.21-generic 5.0.8
  Uname: Linux 5.0.0-20-generic x86_64
  ApportVersion: 2.20.10-0ubuntu27
  Architecture: amd64
  CurrentDesktop: GNOME
  Date: Sun Jul  7 13:05:04 2019
  InstallationDate: Installed on 2019-06-23 (13 days ago)
  InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 19.04 "Disco Dingo" - Release amd64 (20190416)
  SourcePackage: apt
  UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
  modified.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: [modified]
  mtime.conffile..etc.apport.crashdb.conf: 2019-06-29T23:49:14.971566

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/apt/+bug/1835645/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to     : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to