Good point here. PPAs are, in general, to be considered unstable and unsupported (read: risky). This is true with both of the PPAs we're discussing. Often times daily build PPAs track upstream changes which may create problems. Because of this, they should not be recommended. The reason using the Xenial packages is mentioned first is because they are in the repos. In other words, they are supported and stable. Simon's PPA technically doesn't include any real packages. It's merely an instruction for apt. It does all the stuff mentioned in the wiki in one step. That's it. The reason for this is there is no such package in Xenial yet and something has been wrong with the metapackage in the daily PPA for some time. Clearly we need to better explain this on the wiki. Meanwhile, I hope Julien can give us an update on the status of the metapackage in the Lubuntu daily. <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 24, 2016 14:50, "rcmn73" <<a href="mailto:rcmn73@gmail.com">rcmn73@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I guess I missed a lot of the conversation when I replied earlier. I was not aware of the process. I really though you were working of Julien's Meta. I know a lot of people(testers) have been using Julien's Meta for a while and therefore when something breaks or is out of place it is fixed very rapidly . Actually breakage are becoming very uncommon at this point. So if anything this meta has been "maturing" and is pretty stable.But I get your point it is a Daily build. That was the reason why I used your meta for the upgrade of a VM and the fresh install of a PC. However when you said that you create this meta from stable package , I guess the package are stable.But the meta is not... Resulting in some modifications in the wiki page for example and me posting this thread because the use of this meta (for a new install and upgrade) resulted in both cases in an inferior result as if I used the Daily Build. I guess my point is , both seems to be as " *not* wise at all to recommend it in *any* *way* to people wanting to try out LXQt. " I guess it gives some sort of choice. And people can *risk* either of the two PPA I guess... As for me, objectively, and in *my* case the Meta you made was not satisfactory for both new install and upgrade. The daily actually end up fixing most of the issues on the upgraded system. But I had to reinstall entirely the system that had a fresh install. On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, rcmn73 <<a href="mailto:rcmn73@gmail.com">rcmn73@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > Thank you Simon, > > I do not have system to upgrade anymore so I won't have a chance to > test. But If I find some time I'll try to do a fresh install in a VM. > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Simon Quigley <<a href="mailto:tsimonq2@ubuntu.com">tsimonq2@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> I found out what the problem was and I have adjusted the wiki page. >> >> The difference from the daily PPA and my PPA is that my PPA is *just* the metapackage and the daily PPA has more than that. >> >> -- >> Simon Quigley >> <a href="mailto:tsimonq2@ubuntu.com">tsimonq2@ubuntu.com</a> >> tsimonq2 on Freenode >> > > > > -- > R. -- R. -- Lubuntu-users mailing list <a href="mailto:Lubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com">Lubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users</a> </blockquote></div>