13

Specifically I'm asking about the concept discussed in the top rated answers in the meta post How to post links that integrate with the Software Center?

Once upon a time, when apps.ubuntu.com was up to date this was kind of cool. Currently however, none of the currently supported versions of Ubuntu show up under available versions.

Here's an example:

apps.ubuntu

Granted this doesn't stop an apt link from working, but I can see a new user becoming confused and coming to the conclusion that the software in question is not available for their current version of Ubuntu.

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
18

I believe no, it doesn't make sense. It makes a lot more sense to just include an apt link directly or a link to packages.ubuntu.com. Please don't use apps.ubuntu.com.

4
  • 2
    There are Ubuntu users that have posted to the effect that not updating apps.ubuntu.com is an unintentional mistake on the part of Canonical and the website should be updated. This doesn't make sense to me. I think it's more like a weak demonstration on Canonical's part that obsolete software will not be updated anymore, so the user should update his unsupported release to a currently supported release.
    – karel
    Commented Jul 29, 2017 at 13:31
  • @karel Personally, I can neither confirm nor deny the intentions of Canonical on this topic as I've been unable to locate a source that discusses it. I find the contention that it's a demonstation regarding obsolete software difficult to credit as gparted is listed there which is available for all currenlty supported versions of Ubuntu I think it more likely that apps.ubuntu.com is just lagging several versions behind current.
    – Elder Geek
    Commented Aug 7, 2017 at 17:45
  • "Can't confirm or deny" was the purpose of the word "weak" in my preceding comment. Anyway to be fair if you want to read the opposite opinion user Flimm wrote: Why would Canonical provide better support for old, unsupported releases like Ubuntu 10.04, showcasing a great apps.ubuntu.com for it? And at the same time, why would it not support newer supported releases like Ubuntu 16.04 LTS? Canonical still provides apps.ubuntu.com, but just a broken version that doesn't have newer packages, without any messaging anywhere that apps.ubuntu.com is deprecated or something.
    – karel
    Commented Aug 7, 2017 at 18:26
  • I'm Flimm, and you can find my investigation into where apps.ubuntu.com is deprecated in this question
    – Flimm
    Commented Jun 22, 2018 at 11:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .