"No Release file" from do-release-upgrade with an aptly repo

[Liam Proven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 12:47, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> wrote:
>
> Two reasons: some of them are not packaged at all, and those that are set up
> with notable deviations from upstream packaging. In both cases I'm of the
> mind that using a distribution's native package manager is better than
> running "make install", crossing one's fingers, and hoping that nothing gets
> bricked.

OK.

I am not an expert on packaging and stuff, so I am asking for info
here that I myself might not be able to do much with.

But the things are these:

[1] you're asking a really detailed specific question, but you're not
giving detailed specific info about how you got where you are, or why
you did it. I can't speak for anyone else but I find that disparity
really worrying.

[2] If you're in the habit of recompiling OS components, and packaging
them yourself, then TBH, it seems to me that Ubuntu is not the right
distro for you. Ubuntu is designed to be an easy-to-use distro for
non-technical people.

>From the little you've given us to go on, this is some deep hardcore
technical stuff you're doing.

[3] If you want "upstream packaging" then use upstream.

Switch to Debian. But it has a slower release schedule than Ubuntu

[4] If that's not the (only?) issue and you want the latest and
greatest components, then try a rolling-release distro. For a few
years I've been recommending openSUSE Tumbleweed, because it has
snapshots and rollback, very useful with a rolling release.

But now, Garuda Linux does that for Arch, and SpiralLinux does it for
Debian (if you install Spiral then upgrade to Debian `Sid`).

[5] If you don't just need absolutely as-current-as-possible stuff
(and you have not specified what you're changing) and you want to
modify the source and rebuild, then switch to a source-based distro.
Gentoo is the classic one here but there's also CRUX.


> But set aside the underlying reasons. The question to answer here: should or
> shouldn't there be a way to add a custom third party repo and have it
> smoothly integrated with the default distribution repos and without having
> to constantly fight with the package manager.

I do not want to argue but no, it seems to me that that is _not_ the
question here.

Because there is an easy answer to that: you _can_ set up your own
repos. But that is more of a Debian sort of thing to do.

But if I understand you correctly, you haven't set up a repo at all, I think.

You want it to get packages from the local filesystem.

That's not a repo.

If you want or need a repo, then set up a repo!

I recommend the openSUSE Open Build Service.

https://openbuildservice.org/

It's easy and automated and will do the building and the hosting for you.


> If you're saying: no, stick with the default repositories and whatever's in
> there. But I must note the wide availability of third part repositories for
> Ubuntu, both free software and commercial software, especially for LTS
> releases.

Well, yes, but again, there are important considerations here that you
are ignoring.

[1] These are actual online repos. If that's what you need, make one.

[2] They don't duplicate stuff that's in the distro, by and large.
They're for extras that aren't in the distro.

[3] They cause a lot of problems and distros are moving away from this
stuff these days. That is why Snaps and Flatpak exist. If you just
want to package your own stuff, look into making Snaps or Flatpaks or
even, my personal favourite, AppImages.


-- 
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053