Hi Bruce, John, & others, Interesting topic!
The fewer versions of GNUCash there are, the less work it is for developers to reproduce issues AKA limiting possibilities reduces the work involved in trying to reproduce & understand issues. Repology seems to list 256 various Linux distro versions that use many different versions of GNUCash in their repositories - https://repology.org/project/gnucash/versions I can think of a few ways to approach this: 1. Are there specific reasons why some developers/users would still be using Ubuntu 22.04? It looks like the current version of Ubuntu is 25.04 - https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu If there was a financial cost to upgrading the operating system, whether from having to purchase the current version of Windows or MacOS or having to purchase new(er) hardware, that's totally valid. For operating systems like Ubuntu & other free Linux distros (https://distrowatch.com/), if someone's existing hardware supports the current version, why not spend the few hours upgrading the OS? 2. It looks like it is possible to run Flatpaks on Ubuntu & here are the setup instructions - https://flatpak.org/setup/Ubuntu & https://flathub.org/setup/Ubuntu 3. Here is the Flathub page for the GNUCash flatpak - https://flathub.org/apps/org.gnucash.GnuCash Instead of reducing the workload for GNUCash developers, increasing the options for supporting the project include: Financial contributions - https://www.gnucash.org/donate.phtml Nonfinancial contributions - https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Contributing_to_GnuCash (more geared towards users) & https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/WishList (more for developers) --- Thanks, Brad - https://www.facebook.com/brad.morrison.12327/ & https://nextdoor.com/profile/01mP46jj8KCzj3sP4 & https://norcal.social/@BradMorrison On 2025-05-20 14:30, Bruce Schuck wrote: > On 5/20/25 1:59 PM, John Ralls wrote: > > An alternative for those using older Ubuntu releases > 5.11 is as up to date as it gets, that's the current release. I noted "older Ubuntu releases" for those such as me on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS. I usually upgrade every other LTS, so I skipped 24.04 and will update my OS sometime after 26.04LTS is released next April. If I want to run 5.11 on my system I would need to either use a flatpack or compile 5.11 myself. Either is relatively simple for me, as I have experimented on virtual systems. But for Ubuntu 22.04, the most recent GC release via standard Ubuntu/Canonical repo is 4.8. I started thinking about PPAs when a couple reported YahooJSON issues that were recently fixed. Both were using older Ubuntu releases (I think 20.04 and 22.04) and a 5.x GC flatpack. Not sure why neither of them didn't just get the latest flatpack at first. Yes, I know Ubuntu uses Debian packages. I build binary packages at work for a couple in-house applications that we deploy using Ansible or SaltStack. But PPAs don't allow one to directly upload binary packages. > I won't object if someone is willing to step up and be the > "official" PPA-maker *provided* that that someone *commits* to doing > it reliably for every release until they find somebody to replace > them. I assuumed that at least part of the reason for not using PPA was workload. And from my playing around, building a flatpack (not installing) is easier than preparing and building a PPA source package. But then I've just started playing with creating my own. Thanks for the info. Bruce S. _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
