Is there a kind of standard/reason to let a ".deb" file create or not a custom "/etc/apt/sources.list.d/xxx.list file"?

Ubuntu
, , ,
1

Hello Friends

Since Ubuntu Desktop 18.04 to 24.04 (LTS) and Debian 12

For many programs their installation is done through the following commands:

sudo apt update
sudo apt install <software>

Where <software> could be:

  • tmux
  • terminator
  • kitty
  • git

etc…

Now, other software can be installed through .deb files available through their own official home pages. It for example:

  • MySQL
  • Opera
  • Google Chrome
  • Vivaldi
  • Visual Studio Code
  • Docker

Where the commands involved are:

sudo apt update
sudo apt install ./<filename.deb>

The advantage with the apt command for a .deb file is that the dependencies are handled. It normally does not happen with the dpkg command.

The point is, after of a time when is executed the sudo apt update command appears indications to install updates of all the tools installed through their .deb. Therefore when the sudo apt upgrade command is executed they are upgraded too. I confirmed that all of them have a custom .list file in the /etc/apt/soruces.list.d directory. Therefore is clear the reason about why is possible do an upgrade

I found an exception to this “behavior” and is for VirtualBox where at its download page is possible do any of the two following things:

  1. Download a .deb file

but once installed is not possible do an upgrade later. Thus is mandatory to uninstall and install a new .deb file. Therefore from the beginning there is no a custom .list file involved

  1. Work directly with the sources.list file to refer a .gpg file generated from an .asc file

Even more, about Brave browser in its download page it works practically as point 2 of VirtualBox

Question

  • Is there a kind of standard/reason to let a .deb file create or not a custom /etc/apt/sources.list.d/xxx.list file?

Thank You

1 Like
2

It is a choice made by the creator of the .deb file.
I think distros may vary in where
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/xxx.list file is stored, so package maintainers may not want to make distro-specific versions, so they make a generic version.

Making distro-specific .deb files is also plagued by distros having different library and package names and therefore different dependencies. The temptation to only make a generic .deb file and and leave the dependency problem to users must be quite strong.

3 Likes
3

Thanks for the reply and explanation

I am going to read soon as I can the provided link

3 Likes
4

Interesting - I ONLY ever install downloaded DEB packages using “dpkg” command…

I do sometimes run into dependancy issues. But - “apt install -f” usually fixes that… However 95% of the time - installing via dpkg command - pulls down the required dependancies…

e.g. Resilio Sync comes as a DEB package… I install it :

sudo dpkg -i ./resilio-sync_3.0.1.1414-1_amd64.deb

and it pulls down the dependancies it needs automatically (there’s not many)…

But when I install Synergy KVM from a DEB file - it does install SOME of the dependancies - but not all…

e.g.
sudo dpkg -i ./synergy_1.17.1_ubuntu-24-04_amd64.deb
usually has unmet dependancies and errors out… Running “sudo apt install -f” fixes that and the package is then installed (i.e. it finishes installing the package).

Note above - installing Synergy on Ubuntu on a Pi4 or Pi5 is not the same - as the Ubuntu arm64 repos don’t have libssl (don’t ask me why) - so I have to install that as DEB file (which I store in the same folder as the Synergy DEB files)…

1 Like
5

That other 5% has to be a fault in the .deb package.

2 Likes
6

5% was a rough estimate… By that I meant it mostly doesn’t happen…

Dunno if I’d blame the deb package… and it’s not a biggie - usually easily fixed with “sudo apt install -f” (I think “-f” can also be done with --fix-missing maybe? e.g. “sudo apt --fix-missing” or something like that - but I usually just do “apt install -f”)

2 Likes
7

I am not sure of this, but I feel that a .deb file must contain a list of dependencies… or does it autodetect ? … that is hard… ldd only detects startup dependencies… I dont know how to find runtime dependencies? There can be chains of depdndencies… it is a messy business.

When I install R from source, there is a configure script that checks your OS for everything needed. R is z tarball, but I would expect a .deb file to handle dependencies… or does it leave all that to the package system? … like “here is a binary… you work out how to run it” surely not?

I had better take a look inside some .deb files and see

That link in reply no 2 has this

mkdir -p ~/example/hello-world_0.0.1-1_amd64/DEBIAN
 echo "Package: hello-world Version: 0.0.1 
Maintainer: example <example@example.com> 
Depends: libc6 
Architecture: amd64 
Homepage: http://example.com 
Description: A program that prints hello" \ > ~/example/hello-world_0.0.1-1_amd64/DEBIAN/control

So a .deb package has a control file that contains a Depends item.
Apparently you can see what dependencies are listed in this control file by
dpkg -I packagename.deb
I have not tested it.

OK, so your 5% have dud control files maybe?

2 Likes
8

I have never ever seen such a behavior. For me apt install -f was always necessary, when there were dependencies not already installed.

Edit: looked into the deb (resilio-sync_3.0.3.1065-1_amd64.deb which is currently available to dwonload).
Contents of the control:

Package: resilio-sync
Version: 3.0.3.1065-1
Architecture: amd64
Maintainer: Resilio, Inc. <support@resilio.com>
Installed-Size: 24706
Conflicts: btsync
Replaces: btsync
Section: net
Priority: extra
Homepage: https://resilio.com
Description: Resilio Sync is a proprietary peer-to-peer file synchronisation tool.
 It can sync files between devices on a local network, or between remote
 devices over the Internet using a proprietary high-speed data delivery protocol.

There are zero dependencies listed here.

2 Likes
9

That might be Daniel’s problem.
The developers were too lazy to bother listing dependencies… they leave it to apt install -f to fix

1 Like
10

No, apt install -f comes into sight when there is a dependency marked, but not installed.
For example, I install a package, which my wife would need:

root@DellG3:/home/laco/Letöltések# dpkg -i eSzemelyi_Kliens_x64_1_7_3.deb 
Selecting previously unselected package eszemelyi-kliens.
(Adatbázis olvasása ... 425574 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack eSzemelyi_Kliens_x64_1_7_3.deb ...
Unpacking eszemelyi-kliens (1.7.3) ...
dpkg: függőségi gondok miatt nem beállítható e csomag: eszemelyi-kliens:
 eszemelyi-kliens függőségek: pcscd; ám:
   `pcscd' csomag nincs telepítve.

dpkg: error processing package eszemelyi-kliens (--install):
 függőségi hibák - e csomag beállítatlan maradt
Processing triggers for mailcap (3.70+nmu1) ...
Processing triggers for gnome-menus (3.36.0-1.1) ...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils (0.26-1) ...
Hibák történtek a feldolgozáskor:
 eszemelyi-kliens
root@DellG3:/home/laco/Letöltések#

Here you see dpkg failing to install, becasue a dependnecy (pcscd) is not installed.

If I look at the control of the deb:

package: eszemelyi-kliens
version: 1.7.3
architecture: amd64
depends: pcscd
maintainer: ID&Trust Kft.
description: eSzemelyi Kliens Installer
             Installer of the eSzemelyi Kliens software package for the Hungarian eSzig card.
installed-size: 26823

Indeed, pcscd is listed as a dependency.
So if I really want to install it, either use apt install ./####.deb or try to install via dpkg (as I did), and run apt install -f afterwards.
The apt util then downloads the dependencies, and finishes the installation of that package.

root@DellG3:/home/laco/Letöltések# apt install -f
Csomaglisták olvasása... Kész
Függőségi fa építése... Kész
Állapotinformációk olvasása... Kész
Függőségek javítása... Kész
A következő további csomagok lesznek telepítve:
  libccid pcscd
Javasolt csomagok:
  pcmciautils
Az alábbi ÚJ csomagok lesznek telepítve:
  libccid pcscd
0 frissített, 2 újonnan telepített, 0 eltávolítandó és 0 nem frissített.
1 nincs teljesen telepítve/eltávolítva.
Letöltendő adatmennyiség: 457 kB.
A művelet után 803 kB lemezterület kerül felhasználásra.
Folytatni akarja? [I/n] i
Letöltés:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 libccid amd64 1.5.2-1 [367 kB]
Letöltés:2 http://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 pcscd amd64 1.9.9-2 [89,7 kB]
Letöltve 457 kB 0mp alatt (3.000 kB/s)
Selecting previously unselected package libccid.
(Adatbázis olvasása ... 425722 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../libccid_1.5.2-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking libccid (1.5.2-1) ...
Selecting previously unselected package pcscd.
Preparing to unpack .../pcscd_1.9.9-2_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking pcscd (1.9.9-2) ...
Beállítás: libccid (1.5.2-1) ...
Beállítás: pcscd (1.9.9-2) ...
Created symlink /etc/systemd/system/sockets.target.wants/pcscd.socket → /lib/sys
temd/system/pcscd.socket.
pcscd.service is a disabled or a static unit, not starting it.
Beállítás: eszemelyi-kliens (1.7.3) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.11.2-2) ...
root@DellG3:/home/laco/Letöltések#

If there are zero dependencies listed, or only dependencies already installed on the system, dpkg would install that package without a complaint.

From another point of view, If I would hack that package so that there’s no dependency listed, dpkg would install it without a problem. But the program would not work though, it would fail to start with something like whatever.so is not found, because that still requires that library to be able to work.
There’s no way for apt install -f to find out which package would solve the problem of the missing library (dependency).

So if the develpoers are lazy to to list dependencies, they will need to provide support, what package (library) to install to avoid errors like ###.so not found.

Does that make it more clear?
(I may try to reword it couple times :slight_smile: )

2 Likes
11

Yes, thank you. That is clear.
and
lazy developers is not the cause of Daniel’s 5% . He does not get .so not found error.
His case is that dpkg fails because he needs to install some package.

I once had to try and trace the dependencies of a binary .
It took ages.

2 Likes
12

:slight_smile:

If had to guess…
that approx 5% is where there were dependencies listed in packages, which were not yet installed.
The 95% was that the system had already installed the listed dependencies of a package.

2 Likes
13

Agree.
I have also now learnt what apt install -f does… I thought it fixed the database, but it actually installs packages detected as missing.

2 Likes
14

Which Daniel? Me?
It’s not a problem for me - doesn’t bother me in the slightest… I know the fix… I don’t consider this something that’s “broken”.

As mentioned - this almost always (or even always?) installs without missing any dependancies…

What I often get issues with is Synergy KVM software in DEB format. I’m pretty sure in the last 7 years since I bought it - I’ve ALWAYS had to run “sudo apt install -f” (or --fix-missing?) after “dpkg -i ./filename.deb”… I think the last time I installed it on this Pop! desktop machine - I didn’t have to because I was upgrading and the dependancies were installed with the previous version…

However - I have actually had it “break” irrevocably on ARM64 Linux (Ubuntu 24.04 on a Pi4 or Pi5) - don’t ask me why - or how - but it trashed my apt database - and I couldn’t fix it - I levelled the blame SQUARELY at the developer (and logged a ticket) - the client on my Pi5 running Ubuntu 24.04 (arm64) kept constantly nagging me to upgrade the Synergy version - so I did and it broke and I couldn’t fix it! The response to my ticket was an apology! That’s it! I resolved it by doing Ubuntu 24.04 from scratch on the Pi5. The other workaround might have been use another keyboard on the Pi5 - but NO! I have about 60 cm space on my desk for mouse and keyboard!

So - I’m running Synergy KVM 1.17.1 on my Pop!_OS desktop machine (server) and my two MacBooks (clients) - but 1.14.6-stable on my Pi5 with Ubu 24.04… This could become a problem if I decide to bite the bullet and fully embrace Wayland… But I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it…

2 Likes
15

Yes you.
I know, it is just that I wrongly blamed the deb packsge makers. I had to sort that out in my mind and Laszlo helped with that.

Yes that is a real problem

2 Likes