198
I made a local APT repository that automatically fetches DEBs and AppImages from anywhere (jlai.lu)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

On Debian-based distros, when an app is available as a DEB or an AppImage (that doesn't self-update), but no APT repository, PPA or Flatpak, the only option is to manually download each update, and usually manually check even whether there are updates.

But, what if those would be upgraded at the same time as everything else using the tools you're familiar with ?

dynapt is a local web server that fetches those DEBs (and AppImages to be wrapped into DEBs) wherever those are, then serves these to APT like any package repository does.

I started building it a few months ago, and after using it to upgrade apps on my computers and servers for some time, I pre-released it for the first time last week.

The stable version will come with a CLI wizard to avoid this manual configuration.

Feedback is welcome :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It’s a cool concept, but automation breeds laziness (by design, to an extent) and lazy end users tend to shoot themselves in the foot. So it isn’t great for security, but it also isn’t that much worse for security :)

Since some people with money tend to be litigious, and, of course, I am not a lawyer, I would advise a warning message (or part of the license if you don’t want to muck up your CLI), if you don’t have one, to force the user to accept and acknowledge that the software they are installing using this tool is not verified to be safe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    How is the manual step more secure though ?

    What does the user do before downloading a DEB that makes that gap between manual and automated ?

    I'd be willing to try and reproduce that, but I don't see anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I didn’t say it was more secure, I said it’s about the same.

    The difference is a person being forced to go to a website to download software means more steps and more time to consider the safety of what they’re doing. It’s part psychological.

    Not all such packages are retrieved from GitHub, I remember downloading numerous .deb files direct over the past 25 years (even as recent as downloading Discord manually some years back).

    The main point I’m making is that you should legally protect yourself, it’s a low and reasonable effort.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I didn’t say it was more secure, I said it’s about the same.

    You said automation breeds laziness (by design, to an extent) and lazy end users tend to shoot themselves in the foot.

    So, my question is : what part of automating download of DEBs from a specific source can be shooting oneself in the foot compared to doing the same thing manually every time ?

    you should legally protect yourself

    The MIT license will take care of that.

    Also, to force the user to accept and acknowledge that the software they are installing using this tool is not verified to be safe is inducing fear and/or guilt, therefore is bad UX, I'm not doing that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I already answered that first question.

    And then all those app store fronts that say whether a flatpak is verified or not is inducing fear and/or guilt and is therefore bad UX. It's not, but you are free to have your opinion.

    Have fun then, I'm done wasting my time here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent