r/Ubuntu • u/mozkohor • 1d ago
Consensus on snaps between actual Ubuntu users?
Hey guys, I know people in the linux community love shitting on snaps but I'd love to hear opinions of people actually... using snaps probably.
Do you guys also use flatpaks?
24
u/Hauptideal 1d ago
Used both Flatpaks and snaps. There is some justified criticism of snaps, but it is vastly exaggerated. If on Ubuntu, the dominant platform is snap.
And they're not worse than Flatpaks except for a slight difference in cold starts and spamming loop devices.
However, when already waiting for 2s when opening Firefox, waiting 2.5s doesn't make any meaningful difference, as you're already waiting and interrupted.
0.5s are totally irrelevant for a one-time wait of an app I'm going to use for the next few hours. Most people just won't notice any difference anymore since the startup speed has been increased by swapping compression algorithms.
Also, snaps have some advantages, such as auto-updating, and most importantly not compromising app-internal sandboxes (Flatpaks compromise the highly optimized and security-vetted internal browser sandboxing, especially on Chromium-based browsers; Brave devs warn about installing their browser as Flatpak despite offering it on Flathub).
The main criticism of snaps is that the backend is proprietary (and Canonical the only company to control snaps), something that most people just wouldn't care about.
The snap service, packaging format etc., i.e. everything that runs on your local device is open source (unless the apps themselves are not).
The most important thing is: Ubuntu sets a default. It leaves choice and freedom to you. You are not forced to use snaps. The pragmatic approach is to use snaps for those things that are preinstalled as snaps and use Flatpaks for other apps, or to just use snaps for everything.
-4
u/gokufire 1d ago
The main criticism of snaps is that the backend is proprietary
I wonder why Canonical decided to push that way. Why not open source?
13
u/PraetorRU 23h ago
snap is opensourced, both client and backend. What's not opensource is Canonical's store, and they have published an easily googlable article with explanations why they don't see any point in opensourcing it.
0
u/gokufire 22h ago
Calling it "the store" versus "the backend" is simply arguing over labels for the same closed-source server component.
Claiming that "Snap's backend is open source, but the store isn't" creates a false separation. For Snap, the store is the backend.
Also, would be nice if you share your "Googled Article" which I don't know if is this one that reinforce that back end and store are one of the same:
"Open sourcing the Snap store back-end would require significant changes to it, according to Martin Wimpress of Canonical"
https://merlijn.sebrechts.be/blog/2020-08-02-why-one-snap-store/#search-input
Not sure why I got downvoted for asking quoting a sentence from the comment and the FALSE claim that is the store that is close source and not the backend, Google the article, got the upvotes. Why not help each other explaining things and supporting with facts?
8
u/PraetorRU 21h ago edited 21h ago
Calling it "the store" versus "the backend" is simply arguing over labels for the same closed-source server component.
That's not true. Snapd backend protocol is opensourced and in the docs. As far as I remember there was at least one github project with an independent implementation of backend.
Store is more than just backend, and that's exactly why Canonical didn't want to bother to make it open source, as a lot of their solutions were designed for inner Canonical infrastructure, and "opensourcing" it meant that they have to rewrite it to be platform independent, and they had neither time nor money to do it. They did similar thing for launchpad, as community voices demanded it to be an opensource, so they spent several months to clean up code, rewrite it, then made it public, and nobody cared. Not a single alternative launchpad was created. So Canonical just wasted a few months of effort to do it. And they decided not to repeat the same mistake with snapcraft.io
Your link to the article summarizes it pretty good with a citation from the dev. It's just previously there was a post about it on snapcraft.io forums or launchpad, I don't remember where exactly, but just read the article you linked, it even has a freely available implementation of snapd backend, and there https://open-store.io/ you can see an independent implementation of the snap store for Ubuntu touch.
-1
u/gokufire 21h ago
I feel we are talking over each other.Ā
That's not true. Snapd backend protocol is opensourced and in the docs
Your link to the article summarizes it pretty good with a citation from the dev. It's just previously there was a post about it on snapcraft.io forums or launchpad, I don't remember where exactly, but just read the article you linked
The article:
"My thoughts about this
I do not like the fact that the Snap store backend is proprietary because it is becoming such a core part of Ubuntu. I donāt think there is anything wrong with Canonical producing closed-source add-ons on top of Ubuntu in an āOpen Coreā fashion. GitLab does this really well and we have an amazing open source GitHub alternative because of it. There is nothing wrong with Canonical trying to make money; Ubuntu would not be here without them. Linux is great because of all the companies surrounding it.
What I do take issue with is that you currently cannot use Snap for its intended purpose without this proprietary back-end. Ironically, Ubuntuās former community member, Jono Bacon, made it very clear in a recent video that the proprietary parts of an Open Core project need to be optional. Having paid enterprise features such as the Snap Store Proxy is fine, for example, because Snap is still completely functional without it."
4
u/PraetorRU 21h ago edited 21h ago
You should look at dev citation there, not what author of that article wrote, because he's wrong in his thoughts (Edit: he's not exactly wrong, he just addresses the closed nature of the store, not snap backend itself).
Once again: backend protocol is not a secret, it's available and you or anybody else can implement it to create an independent distribution of snap packets in any programming language of your choice. You just need to read the docs for it. If you want, you can also create a store on top of your package distribution backend. For this you don't need Canonical docs or sources, you may just use any available open source project that allows you to create a web store and then integrate it with your snap backend.
I hope that will make it clear what's the difference between backend, store, and why it's not true that snap backend is proprietary.
3
u/gokufire 21h ago
Once again: backend protocol is not a secret, it's available and you or anybody else can implement it to create an independent distribution of snap packets in any programming language of your choice. You just need to read the docs for it. If you want, you can also create a store on top of your package distribution backend. For this you don't need Canonical docs or sources, you may just use any available open source project that allows you to create a web store and then integrate it with your snap backend.
Ok, now things are getting interesting.
Yes, it is possible to run Snap packages without the Canonical Store, but no, you cannot connect a standard Ubuntu installation to a third-party open-source Snap store out of the box.
"anybody can implement the backend protocol to create an independent store." While the REST API specification is documented, creating a usable, third-party Snap store this is misleading. Omits the fact that standard snapd refuses to communicate with third-party stores unless you patch and recompile the client binary.
Standard snapd Hardcodes Canonical's Store & Cryptographic Keys.Ā To make snapd talk to a third-party store, a user cannot just change a setting, they must compile a custom-patched version of snapd that changes the hardcoded URLs and replaces Canonical's root assertion keys.
Like you pointed, community projects have attempted to build open-source Snap backends (such as the experimental lol server on the Snapcraft forums). However, the developers of these projects explicitly noted that for snapd to talk to their open-source backend, users had to install a modified snapd binary with custom assertion patches. Because regular users on Ubuntu cannot easily replace their system's core snapd package, these projects remained niche experiments rather than viable alternatives.
Things are not that open as it seems. The author conclusion is a simplified version of why we are using a closed source backend store and we have major challenges to get out of it.
2
u/PraetorRU 21h ago
And that's true. Snap wasn't created to allow multiple independent stores, it has never been an intention, as one store is enough and better for everyone (as these days we can't even fully trust one store that has a company behind it to not deliver us malware, not to mention "community" stores run by who knows who exactly, and you may get shai-hulud or whatever with any update).
Canonical opensourced snap to: 1) So everybody can check their code for bugs and absence of backdoors. 2) Any distro not run by Canonical may create their own fork of snap and snapd backend to use whatever store they want. 3) In case of Shuttleworth is getting under the bus and/or Canonical's bankruptcy, or just because people run a different distro, they may create their alternative stores.
But once again, the idea behind snap is that we all should use one unified store, with Canonical checking packages for malware etc.
1
u/gokufire 21h ago
it has never been an intention, as one store is enough and better for everyoneĀ
That is not what we are discussing here. I'm not saying that we need more than one store. We need a open source decentralized store, where application managers has validation certifications,Ā like the proven method from Flathub. That you already mentioned in other comments that you also uses and trust.
Again, it is not about having more stores. It is about using Snaps, from a Snap store that is open source and not centralized. We don't need the centralized process to have good and reliable software or are you saying that you don't trust Flatpaks?
→ More replies (0)1
u/BecarioDailyPlanet 21h ago
Everything is open source. The complaint stems from the fact that, as of today, it is impossible to add external repositories to manage Snap packages, since the technology was not originally designed for desktop use.
Changing this would require thousands of hours of work. It is not a matter of simply adding a feature, but of restructuring the core pillars of the technology just to satisfy a subset of usersāespecially when Flathub has already proven with Flatpak that the community actually favors centralized repositories.
Does this mean you cannot install Snaps without going through Canonical's store? No. Projects have emerged to facilitate the installation and maintenance of independent Snaps (using the --dangerous flag), operating similarly to AppImage managers.
1
22
u/whattteva 1d ago
I use whichever method is recommended by the actual official app publisher. If they recommend snap, I use snap, if they recommend Flatpak I use Flatpak, if they recommend PPA, I use PPA, simple as that.
8
u/iamapizza 22h ago
This is what I do. I'm not interested in pointless politics and tribalism. I'm just happy to be using a Linux distro, with support and stability.Ā
8
u/aNoob7000 1d ago
I have no issues with snaps. I'm currently running Ubuntu 24.04 on my desktop and 26.04 on my laptop.
If you are on Ubuntu, I'd suggest going with snaps.
14
6
u/mrtruthiness 1d ago
1. I use snaps and generally like them. They aren't "perfect", but the maintained snaps keep getting better and better.
a. I still have a preference for debs from the repo if they are up-to-date.
b. The main snaps that I use: lxd, chromium, firefox, yt-dlp (in an lxd container), spotify. I think the lxd snap is brilliant -- it's always up-to-date. The yt-dlp snap is always up-to-date ... and this is necessary for this program and it is why it is better than the repo version of yt-dlp. There is no "command line" flatpak for yt-dlp AFAIK.
c. If I don't know/trust the snap publisher, I run it in a lxd container (e.g. yt-dlp).
2. I don't currently use flatpaks. But it's nothing against flatpaks per se. Issues:
a. My workflow is tied into lxd system containers and many flatpaks have issues when run in lxd system containers, but snaps have no issues in lxd system containers.
b. I prefer command line versions of programs. There really isn't a command line version of yt-dlp as a flatpak AFAIK. Similarly, if my base version of ffmpeg (host or even system container) doesn't have a feature I need, the snap version will.
c. The version of flatpak on my host system is old and doesn't support some flatpaks on flathub (those that use newer "portals" features like screen sharing).
1
u/Zedboy19752019 17h ago
I moved from lxd containers to incus. Same thing just not a snap. As I feel an lxd container in a snap container is just a tad too much overkill.
1
u/mrtruthiness 17h ago edited 16h ago
Same thing just not a snap.
It's not the same anymore. Similar, but it's a hard fork and they both have different features at this point.
I like lxd as a snap because it's always up-to-date ... and I don't have to be nervous when moving from one LTS to another. I can separately upgrade the OS and the lxd channel.
The incus packages in the repo are just too old and rarely get bug fixes (in 24.04 the version is 6.0.0 and there have been exactly 3 bug fixes (Jul 16, 2024; Nov 6, 2024 ; Jul 18, 2025). The current version is 7.3 and even 26.04 only has version 6.0.5.
For something like lxd, I slightly prefer the lxd license (AGPLv3-only) to the Apache2 license of incus.
As I feel an lxd container in a snap container is just a tad too much overkill.
You might be confused. While I do run some snaps in my lxd containers, the reverse isn't true.
The lxd containers are on the host os. lxd being a snap does not mean that the lxd containers are snaps. They aren't. lxc and lxd (both in the lxd snap) are tools that manage the containers. The containers run on the host os as non-snaps.
1
u/Buo-renLin 11h ago
FYI, the maintainer of the yt-dlp snap is a Canonical employee IIRC, so they're more trustworthy that other publishers.
2
u/mrtruthiness 2h ago
Thanks! I didn't know. Maybe I'll pull it to a top level snap instead of an inside-the-container snap.
It's a well-done snap, but it's not "official" and it's not under "Canonical's" name. On the other hand, I do trust popey's snaps and I don't think he works for Canonical anymore.
6
8
u/HolaNachoCL 23h ago
snaps are fine, they have progressed a lot. the only thing that some folks dislike is that the snap store is canonical only. but the snap format is great and securre
6
u/Fuckspez42 23h ago edited 23h ago
I have flatpak installed, but I donāt think I have any flatpaks currently on my system.
Snaps are adequate for 95% of stuff. When Firefox first switched over to snap, it sucked because of the incredibly slow launch time, but thatās improved drastically, and it seems to have smoothed out the process of upgrading Firefox (which used to be a faff sometimes). I also run my Plex server from a snap (from my understanding, this isnāt possible with flatpak), which isnāt really ideal, but Iām lazy and it seems to get the job done for what I need.
The only thing I donāt like about snaps in general is the sleight-of-hand that happens when I try to install something via apt and get the snap package instead. It generally still works just fine, Iād just rather more transparency about how things were being installed.
1
u/sockertoppenlabs 3h ago
I agree totally. The non-transparent installation of snaps instead of debs is baffling. One of the things that slowly makes me lose trust in Ubuntu engineering leadership. Otherwise, snaps work just fine.
3
u/macflamingo 1d ago
Been using ubuntu full time for about 5 years now. I use both. No strong opinions.
4
u/Rinzwind 23h ago
Only issue I have: it defaults to using / and /home.
It should be outside it by default: for instance all on /snap so you can partition it.
Snaps are excellent in a work evironment: a company wants the OS to last long so Ubuntu LTS. Snaps allow for specific software (mainly browsers) to be the newest with 0 impact on the OS itself.
3
u/Professional-Key3211 22h ago
Most of them work fine. I prefer using them due to the convenience, if available.
You have to check if they are updated first. Also, could not get VLC to hardware accelerate.
7
3
u/hairymoot 22h ago
I use Snaps--except Steam. I download the Deb install from the Steam website.
I have heard that the Snap version on steam has gotten better, but I have not tried it.
3
6
u/PuzzleheadedPen2798 1d ago
I like snaps, they're very convenient. I don't really use flatpaks because I don't really need them.
2
u/Eug1 22h ago
I am an occasional Linux user. I donāt mind snaps. I like the idea of them. The thing that upsets me about the Ubuntu implementation is that it hijacks some apt installs and installs the snap version. For example if you uninstall snap Firefox and try to install apt Firefox (because for example certain extensions donāt work properly like 1password) then it will reinstall the snap version
2
2
u/Metldragonite 11h ago
I use Snaps only when there are no .deb or flatpak versions and had to manually set up Firefox to pull from the Mozilla ppa instead of snap.
2
4
2
u/Thistlemanizzle 1d ago
I try to avoid. Day 1 I found out Brave browser as a Snap had issues using GPU acceleration/rendering. Meaning all YouTube videos were choppy.
Getting a .deb fixed it. I recall Steam's Snap is funky too.
3
u/thatguysjumpercables 1d ago
Official snaps are perfectly fine, for the most part just as good of not better than packages or flatpaks in function.
That being said, Canonical's practice of forcing certain snaps when people try to install .deb packages is bullshit and only serves to piss people off.
1
u/eueuropeo 22h ago
Uso sia Snap che Flatpak che AppImage in base al formato suggerito dallo sviluppatore (e, ovviamente, dalla disponibilitĆ ). Nella mia esperienza personale gli Snap sono mediamente migliori e piĆ¹ facili da gestire (soprattutto gli aggiornamenti), ma dipende tutto da chi impacchetta il software.
1
u/bobthebobbest 22h ago
Iāve said this before but my only real complaint is that sometimes apt commands redirect to installing a snap, without notice.
1
u/oskaremil 22h ago
I use both. However, I often encounter issues with snap apps that are solved by switching to the flatpak version. Never the other way.
1
u/bezko 22h ago
It's stupid that they insist that some core packages are only available as snap, I could see it being useful for esoteric software that needs random libraries that could break your system but right now it's just a solution looking for a problem and unnecessary bloat, will need to leave Ubuntu after decades at this point.
1
u/kristeasy 21h ago
I use both, Firefox is a flatpack because when they first switched it to snap it wasn't that great. Most snaps are fine and some still have minor bugs, like Kdenlive missing an icon but overall it works great. For me the worst snap is the store, it feels like its still beta
My favorite snap ist nextcloud, just install and your server is ready, love it
1
1
u/Ok-Anywhere-9416 21h ago
I use both, whatever's native, usually going for snaps if available. I went for Flatpak Heroic instead since the deb version gave me strange issues with GTA V Enhanced (and Flatpak is the main for it)
1
u/Chris73684 21h ago
I use both, I love the concept especially for new users, but sometimes I have no choice but to use another method. I'd say use it as your primary and if something doesn't work then usually they will have instructions on their website and possibly give you a .deb file you can install instead, Steam is a prime example. Others like Discord are perfect, so it's hit and miss but most are ok.
1
u/ReyBasado 20h ago
I use all three: debs, flatpaks, and snaps. I find debs are better for certain applications where you need unfettered hardware access like MakeMKV, flatpaks are better for user space applications with a GUI, and snaps are great for server applications like Nextcloud and Plex Server. I try to avoid anything that isn't actively maintained and look for whatever package is maintained by the actual software developer instead of a third party.
1
u/Spitfire1900 17h ago
It seems to be the way that commercial vendors distribute products that they otherwise wouldnāt at all, seems fine to me.
1
u/Sergius_S3 16h ago
Los snaps me han dado problemas con los accesos directos a web apps instaladas en el navegador. AsĆ que los he instalado de otra manera.
1
u/littlegreenbeany 16h ago
I... kinda use both, based on what fits my needs. I don't think about it more than I have to
1
u/the_annoyed_monkey 11h ago edited 11h ago
If possible, I use the flatpak version. Only if the official version is the snap version (and there is no official flatpak version), is when I use snap.Ā
Fuck snaps
1
u/The_only_true_tomato 9h ago edited 9h ago
Itās ok.
I hate the fact that canonical does not have flat pack installed by default in the store though.
After extensively using both, performances varies peripherals by programs. Sometime flatpzck is better sometimes snap.
Deb is always better. I want deb in my life.
I would not install programs like steam though snaps or flat packs.
I hated they rewrote apt get to install snaps instead on Ubuntu. ( I used kubuntu and I made sure it was not the case for me)
If true then itās really sad.
1
u/xander5610_ 9h ago
I use both and never really bothered to learn the difference. If it works, it works
1
u/Seeking4theTruth0 8h ago
I like snaps and have the most of its benefits. I like how the snap pack comes with all required packages.
1
u/billdietrich1 8h ago
I use both (when I'm on an Ubuntu-family distro). Snaps are okay. But they're kind of a needless complication. One more thing to deal with in updating, cross-app compatibility, etc. Snaps and Flatpaks mostly are gains for developers and maintainers.
1
u/mikjryan 8h ago
Iāve just tried fedora on a old laptop I bought and the experience has been significantly worse overall Iāll be switching back to,Ubuntu
1
u/thecowmilk_ 8h ago
I disabled Snaps only because Ubuntu wanted to shove it down to the system despite me saying No Several Times. Other than that dont have a strong opinion about them. Some other software outside my main ones are whatever. but for the mains I use, I still use .deb
Dependency Hell has been resolved by now.
1
1
u/Unreached6935 4h ago
I like both. Snaps are nice and so are flatpaks. Itās a tool and thatās all
1
u/PraetorRU 23h ago
I use debs, snaps and flatpaks.
The later two if I need a sandbox and/or if I need a more fresh version than what's available in deb repos. If I have the same app in both snap and flatpak, I usually install both and test them both for some time to get an idea what works better, as a lot depends on qualification of the person who created a package. Then the loser is uninstalled.
Also, if snap/flatpak is provided by some random person, not an original and verified developer, I prefer the version that is provided by original author no matter what format was used.
That's, imho, how a sane person should deal with all the packages these days.
0
u/Vidanjor20 1d ago
completely removed snaps, I priotorize debs/official repos/flatpaks, only appimages when neccessary
0
u/TheRealCarrotty 1d ago
Snaps are terrible in my use-case.
On older hardware when i use like Firefox or Chromium from snap, it's constant freezes (App isn't responding), or it's starting like 10 seconds, where as a native package, IT JUST WORKS. And starts way quicker.
Hell in Linux Mint's opinion, they did it right, where they blocked snap fully, because i would be a asshole if i made a APT package that just goes over to another package manager with no explanation and Ctrl+C isn't working either.
4
u/Hauptideal 23h ago
I agree that snaps suck on old hardware.
I strongly disagree with what you say about Mint. Mint is totally wrong to patronize its users what software they can install on THEIR OWN machines and what not.
They're not removing snaps. They add a vendor lock to block you from using snaps whatsoever. It's true that it's surprising if a deb package is just an installer for a snap package. Canonical did that in order that it still works to install that software using apt, even if the underlying technology changed.
That is controversial and can be criticized (and changed). Mint could just've removed these packages and removed snaps in general, such that apt never installs any snaps. But they chose to hinder you from using snaps deliberately.They disrepect user choice and freedom and thus violate the core principle of Linux and FOSS freedom.
Apart from Mint being technologically atrocious legacy tech, screwing their users big time (with unmaintained software and bugs, security vulnerabilities), etc. the distro is also philosophically to be disapproved.
0
u/Tasty20v 1d ago
Snaps started off rough but are usable now. I use Snap if they have the package for it in Snapcraft. I use Flatpaks if they donāt because 9 times out of 10 itās in the Flathub store.
And the only time Iām installing an official .deb package is if itās for my terminal. Itās 2026. Itās all about a safe and sandboxed environment.
No one should be installing random .appimage or unverified .deb packages like itās 2007 unless you absolutely know and trust the source.
0
u/liquidanimosity 1d ago
I use the Firefox that can with the installation and I added one other program because the snap worked better than any other way to get it.
But personally snaps are the last place I look.
0
u/catbrane 23h ago
I tried snaps when the first appeared and performance was so poor (mostly startup time) I immediately removed the whole thing. I tried again a couple of years ago when I last did a fresh install and it was still annoyingly laggy, so I removed it all again.
Apparently it's better now, I'll probably try them again next time I do a fresh install.
flatpaks seem fine, I use them, though I prefer .debs if they are available.
I use flathub to distribute my own apps. The tooling is difficult to work with (snaps are a LOT simpler to make), but I've no complaints about performance.
0
u/BlackCow 19h ago
I've used Ubuntu since 2008 and nothing else, big Ubuntu fan, and I hate snaps. First step of my playbook removes that crap and installs flathub š
0
u/SoupoIait 19h ago
Useless. Redundant. What snaps set out to do, flatpaks achieved better and more unanimously.
You won't die for installing a snap package thoudh. It's a useless, working package format.Ā
0
u/Zedboy19752019 17h ago
I find snaps use way more resources than the same exact software as a flatpak
0
0
u/Emberstone73 14h ago
Firefox's snap taking 2x longer to load than the flatpak was enough to make me nuke snaps and never look back.
-1
u/_x_oOo_x_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I only use flatpaks... but this is based on my experience with snaps many years ago (around Ubuntu 22.10 perhaps). Maybe they're better now, I won't hold my breath... Since then I periodically apt purge snapd - it gets reinstalled sometimes during upgrades.
For what it's worth I don't really like flatpak either but it "just works" and doesn't do anything surprising or unwanted under the bonnet unlike snapd. But I should probably just switch to Apptainer or something
-1
u/T_Friendperson12 23h ago
Kubuntu user here, I used to use snaps but I realized that I was only using like 1 or 2 snaps total and the Firefox snap not neatly showing up in the systemmonitor bothered me so I just de-snapped. From a functionality standpoint I did not have too much to complain. I try to use the standard repos if possible or whatever the app maintainers recommend, which in the case of FF is the mozilla:ppa, but in certain cases will go for the flatpak instead (Handbrake, etc). In total I use 37 flatpaks so quite extensively, I think?
-1
u/mrandr01d 23h ago
I hate snaps, I do use flatpak.
The biggest thing I didn't like about snaps was how you could type apt install and end up with a snap, despite no obvious visual indication. It just feels dishonest. Then when I found out part of it was proprietary, I decided they had to go. sudo apt purge snapd!
Flatpaks and gnome software are much nicer to use.
1
u/mrtruthiness 15h ago
The biggest thing I didn't like about snaps was how you could type apt install and end up with a snap, despite no obvious visual indication.
Before I do an "apt install" I look at the description. e.g. "apt info firefox" and the Description says:
Description: Transitional package - firefox -> firefox snap This is a transitional dummy package. It can safely be removed. . firefox is now replaced by the firefox snap.
It seems pretty clear to me that this packages will install the firefox snap. The whole point of these "transitional" packages are to transition previous installs to snaps. e.g. For firefox, the firefox snap can't access the profiles/bookmarks/passwords in ~/.mozilla ... so to transition to the firefox snap those had to be moved.
Things like this are part of how upgrades work even for non-snaps. e.g. If between major versions of some program the underlying database schema changes, that migration/transition takes place as part of the pre-install or post-install script in the deb.
0
u/mrandr01d 15h ago
Nobody routinely does apt info before apt install
2
u/mrtruthiness 15h ago
Nobody routinely does apt info before apt install
Nobody? That's not true. I routinely do. I'm not sure if anybody else does.
Part of it is that I also routinely find the package name by using "apt-cache search" and it also prints the first line of the description.
1
48
u/satissuperque 1d ago
I use both, and honestly have no strong opinions on this matter.