Are these files needed for Ubuntu?


Are these files needed for Ubuntu? They had been there for so long, getting copied from one release to another.

Blankon Tambora was released in February 2014.
gNewSense Parkes was released in August 2013.
Kali is, of course, rolling. Added lately.
Tanglu Aequorea was released in February 2014. Tanglu is discontinued in 2017.
Debian Bullseye is sort of rolling until the next stable release.

But still, for updating/upgrading Ubuntu (and variants) only the two files are needed – and Ubuntu.mirrors. So why keep the rest?

1 Like

The package comes from Debian that way in the package python-apt-common.


1 Like

Doesn’t matter, if they are coming from Debian, but are they needed in Ubuntu? Repos, mirrors of dead distros and terribly old repos. Python-apt templates are for updating/upgrading. Ubuntu doesn’t get updated from those dead repos, do they? They are just junk sitting there. Very small files, but still junk.

1 Like

It matters if you need to track patches and expend effort every cycle to maintain, apply, and test the patch. Patches are not free.

Looking at, I don’t see any bug filed to remove those files from Debian. Please be my guest to file it.

(Looking at, looks like the package maintainers could use some additional volunteer help!)

Indeed, it matters in that if it’s indeed a bug, then if fixed in debian, everyone who bases on debian benefits when it’s fixed, us included.

Bugs and patches from dead distros? And from dead repos? For Ubuntu?

1 Like

The package originates in Debian, and synced to Ubuntu. If there are bugs with it, it’s preferred to have those fixes in Debian, if indeed they are needing to be fixed. Worth noting the person who works on this is both a Canonical employee and Debian developer. So either way the same human being will likely do the work. It’s just preferable to fix things upstream so everyone benefits, rather than us carry the patch.

The python-apt template is connected to lsb-release and needed only when a user needs to update/upgrade the installed system. Ubuntu in lsb-release with and Ubuntu.mirrors. The rest is just baggage.

For developing Debian, the developers must have reached to other Debian based distros to pull something from there, but forgotten to delete those .info and .mirrors files. After all, as Sid based Debian distro is never released, the developers don’t need to delete anything. It would be always experimental/unstable. Cleaning up such files are the duty of those, who use Debian Sid and create other distros.

I only pointed out the matter, the decision is yours.

1 Like

If you believe it’s a bug, file a bug, as previously mentioned. Discuss with the packager - who, as mentioned, is the same person in both Ubuntu and Debian.

You must be knowing that Debian never releases a Sid-based distro. That means, no big reports on a non-existing distro. If anyone uses Sid to create distros, that’s their lookout.

1 Like

@chanath I am going to close this topic. I feel that you are wasting peoples time by debating an issue to which you’ve already received direction.

@ian-weisser correctly identified that the relevant package is python-apt-common. @popey has also explained that where ever possible we like to work in upstream Debian and that if you believe this is a bug, you should file it via That is where this discussion is best had and it will be with the maintainer(s) of the aforementioned package.