GetDeb Project

[Krzysztof Lichota]

Scott Kitterman napisał(a):
> I was thinking about this some more.  My objection isn't to the installation 
> method, but to the packages.  Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the 
> benifits of the web front end that Getdeb provides.  
> 
> Rather than remove something like gnucash from getdeb, what really needs to 
> happen is just pointint from the getdeb package to the Ubuntu one.  In the 
> gnucash case it would be changing:
> 
> http://www.getdeb.net/download.php?release=1496&fpos=0
> http://www.getdeb.net/download.php?release=1496&fpos=1
> http://www.getdeb.net/download.php?release=1496&fpos=2
> 
> with 
> 
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/9958499/gnucash_2.2.1-1ubuntu4%7Efeisty1_i386.deb
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/9958498/gnucash-common_2.2.1-1ubuntu4%7Efeisty1_all.deb
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/9959217/gnucash-docs_2.2.0-1%7Efeisty1_all.deb
> 
> The web front end could stay.
> 
> This would have a number of advantages:
> 
> Reduced storage and bandwidth usage for getdeb
> Fewer packages users have to uninstall before an upgrade
> Fewer issues due to unofficial package use
> 
> How about something like that?  I've no objections to that approach myself.

I think it is a good idea, but I see 2 problems:
1. Ubuntu should provide links to debs which do not change in time or
some way of automatically feeding changes to deb names to getdeb, so
that updates do not require manual intervention.
2. Pure .deb packages are not signed (as far as I understand APT
system). Only repos are. So the security problem stays the same.

	Krzysztof Lichota

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20071017/064e257a/attachment.sig>