apt installs snap packages

[ts]

$ lsb_release -rd
Description: Ubuntu Jammy Jellyfish (development branch)
Release: 22.04

$ apt-cache policy apt
apt:
  Installed: 2.4.1
  Candidate: 2.4.1
  Version table:
 *** 2.4.1 500
        500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

3) I expected to dist-upgrade my system, running apt-get dist-upgrade

4) apt tried to install firefox from snap. I naturally aborted the upgrade, if I want a snap package I install it with snap, I use apt to install debian/apt packages.
Aborting the install essentially broke my system. Trying to repair it, and installing firefox using apt again, hence getting force-fed the snap of firefox, broke my install, too, as the snap cannot access my firefox configuration files (for good reasons).
It took me half a day to repair the system and switch to a PPA to keep the system (and Ubuntu with its intended processes - apt for deb, snap for snap, probably flatpaks and whatever for other stuff - for that matter) running.

In summary: We know you love snap. We use snap for certain purposes, and apt for others. Please don't force your love for snap on us, snaps constantly break long-running systems and require careful introduction.

The proper solution could have been to stop supporting firefox from apt, so we have to consciously deal with the situation - without getting our systems broken.

Thanks ❤️

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 22.04
Package: apt 2.4.1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.15.0-22.22-generic 5.15.19
Uname: Linux 5.15.0-22-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.20.11-0ubuntu79
Architecture: amd64
CasperMD5CheckResult: pass
CurrentDesktop: MATE
Date: Tue Mar 22 16:26:47 2022
InstallationDate: Installed on 2022-03-07 (15 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS "Jammy Jellyfish" - Alpha amd64 (20220228)
RebootRequiredPkgs: Error: path contained symlinks.
SourcePackage: apt
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

[ts (toto-23)]

Please, please, pretty please use apt for deb and snap for snap, and don't pollute apt with snap packages.

Thanks!

[ts (toto-23)]

Thanks for your attention to this bug report. I don't quite see how it's invalid - the upgrading behavior implemented here is breaking systems without prior notice (and without offering any choice).

The least that could have been done is warn during one update cycle and switch over sometimes later, but the dialog has exactly one option, which is "OK". I guess this dialog was intended as a reference to "Qualityland" (for those who read German), but it's all but sensible or respectful treatment of the users. I understand that the aim of Ubuntu is to appify everything and kill off the Unix culture of easy integration, and since I choose to use Ubuntu I will have to agree with this policy and rebuild my systems accordingly. But please let's avoid Ubuntu becoming like a Goliath corporation that effs up its "customers" and doesn't give a damn.

[David Kalnischkies (donkult)]

fwiw it is "invalid" here as apt has nothing to do with it, as it did what it is supposed to do, upgrade a package: It has no business in the contents, similar to a parcel deliverer. It is probably more productive you figure out what exactly is not working in foo.deb vs. foo.snap and report this to foo (or snap) so it can be worked on and perhaps fixed. Currently, you are angrily complaining to your old parcel deliverer that they brought you a letter informing you that the next letter will come with a different parcel deliverer.

(Disclaimer: Not an Ubuntu dev, not even a user, but one of the devs of apt itself reading "downstream" bug reports)

[ts (toto-23)]

point taken, apologies for addressing the wrong audience, who indeed volunteer their time to help.

I do not quite agree with the metaphor, as my old parcel deliverer has taken an old working delivery back and pushed me a new delivery that doesn't work in my environment - without prior notice or leaving me any choice.
But I see indeed that the decision has been taken and the fundamental problem lies somewhere else.

Thanks again.