Forum Discussion

danudey's avatar
danudey
New Member
2 days ago

1password dpkg package should stop creating 1password.list

When installing the 1password .deb file, the post-install script automatically creates a file at /etc/apt/sources.list.d/1password.list. This is irritating and is bad behaviour.

Point one: the user did not ask for this file to be created. If you're going to create it, at least ask users if they want it.

Point two: I create and manage my sources files centrally; I do this for my personal systems, and I've always done this when I'm managing a fleet of computers. I create names that make sense to me and have the correct details. Unfortunately, every time I update 1password it re-creates `1password.list` and then apt breaks because I now have two files pointing at the same apt repository - yours and mine.

Point three: I use the new deb822 .sources file format, because this allows me to keep the Apt configuration and the GPG key in the same file, meaning I only have one file to manage. This makes it easier to manage things centrally, and helps keep from scattering GPG keys all over the servers.

1password needs to either:

  1. Just stop doing it (give people instructions like every other website does)
  2. Make it optional via e.g. a debconf setting (which the application could theoretically have a UI for, even, if you wanted to get crazy with it)
  3. Make the file part of the actual package contents so that admins can dpkg-divert it

In the meantime, I created a symlink pointing 1password.list to /dev/null; apt still complains about it but at least nothing breaks.

2 Replies

  • AJCxZ0's avatar
    AJCxZ0
    Silver Expert

    I agree that they should stop using `1password.list` and switch to DEB822 format `1password.sources`. This has been suggested more than once in the past few years (and, like with improving `1password.desktop`, folks have already done the work for free).

    The practice of creating or including the repo file(s) in the application package is more controversial, but creating it with a post install script is wrong™. If creating a separate "release" package is too much work, then your third suggestion is a good one.

  • For point one, I meant 'give people instructions like every other website does and leave it at that instead of overcomplicating things'.