Adding PPA's - good idea? Bad idea?

zero2dash

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
6,098
I'm in the process of migrating from Windows over to Ubuntu MATE 16.04.2 LTS which appears to be "the distro for me" (after testing maybe a dozen).

Just a general question -
Several of the apps from the official repository that I use are out of date (compared to the ones I use on Windows).
GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, HomeBank to name a few.
I've found PPA's on Canonical's PPA site, https://launchpad.net/.

From the limited amount of resources I've found online so far, people basically have said adding PPA's is OK as long as you know what you're doing. I understand that basically, the official PPA is going to install the apps as Canonical has tested them with the OS, but obviously, I can add PPA's and update the software, and 'void my warranty'. :)

Just curious what anyone here thinks....good idea? Bad idea?
I would think that adding PPA's (at least like in this case, from an actual Canonical site), would be "safe".
 
I'm in the process of migrating from Windows over to Ubuntu MATE 16.04.2 LTS which appears to be "the distro for me" (after testing maybe a dozen).

Just a general question -
Several of the apps from the official repository that I use are out of date (compared to the ones I use on Windows).
GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, HomeBank to name a few.
I've found PPA's on Canonical's PPA site, https://launchpad.net/.

From the limited amount of resources I've found online so far, people basically have said adding PPA's is OK as long as you know what you're doing. I understand that basically, the official PPA is going to install the apps as Canonical has tested them with the OS, but obviously, I can add PPA's and update the software, and 'void my warranty'. :)

Just curious what anyone here thinks....good idea? Bad idea?
I would think that adding PPA's (at least like in this case, from an actual Canonical site), would be "safe".

I think they're a good idea until they're not. I use PPA's for Mesa and haven't had any issues so far. If it were to become a problem then hopefully I can deal with it. I think so long as one researches the PPA it can be a good thing. I am in no way capable of compiling Mesa and Mint doesn't push me the latest version in a timely manner so the PPA works great for me and fills a need.
 
I can't see an issue with signed PPA's, I've added heaps and I've had no issues whatsoever. As with any OS, backups are paramount in the off chance something goes tits up.
 
The 'dangerous' PPA's are the ones that hook you up to newer versions of drivers or operating system components. With those you can hose your system easily. In some cases you may get access to a single component through a PPA but accidentally upgrade a lot of other system components in the process and end up in a dependency hell. Single apps can be updated with PPAs quite trouble free IMO.
 
I've been downloading Nvidia drivers via PPA for years now, never had a single issue, the only time I did have an issue someone tried to snap package the drivers - That did not work, bad idea.

But I agree, with the exception of graphics drivers, all other drivers and OS components via official repositories only.
 
I add a few ppas myself for the same reason - I added the wine one yesterday as ubuntu 16.04 is on wine 1.6 IIRC and 2.3 is out.
I also add the nvidia binary drivers ppa without an issue.

What you want to avoid is "BOBS BEST LEETZ SOFTWRZ!!!!" ppa that is done by someone who doesn't have experience packaging & isn't widely used.
 
Back
Top