• henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 天前

    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.

    • manxu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 天前

      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!!!

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 天前

        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!

      • zorro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 天前

        You can set packages from a particular repo to a lower priority so that they are only installed when you expressly ask for them

    • thorhop@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 天前

      I think Fedora’s COPR carries on the torch, besides Arch’s AUR. But generally, yeah, avoid PPA’s like the plague. It’s been garbage for years now. You’d be better off actually compiling the software yourself.

    • jim3692@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 天前

      When I use Debian/Ubuntu, I prefer installing missing/outdated software from Nix package manager or Flatpaks.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.