Yes, there is realy a need for a repository.

Or, alternatively, create a set of PPA repositories [1] on Ubuntu's launchpad for the LTS releases. This is easier as your own maintainers could update the PPA with each release. It would also provide a path for offering unstable releases.

Best regards,
-Adam

[1] - https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA

No, because this is not browser or messenger. Drivers should be in system repository.

You should make your own repo for debian/Ubuntu and fedora/centos.

Dear DisplayLink, other top idea above this one s is already implemented or at least planned.

What about this idea? There is kinda of enough voices already.

Gathering feedback, so yes, I would love for this feature to be added. Would make hunting down the latest build when an update breaks the displaylink driver a much better "just works" solution.

See also: http://support.displaylink.com/forums/287786-displaylink-feature-suggestions/suggestions/20480206-package-ubuntu-software-properly

Agree with other comments here. Packaging as an executable installer script on Ubuntu makes as much sense as distributing a tarball for Windows. Proper packaging and distribution (either via your own repository or Canonical's) will improve sales into this market.

Even better would be, having your own apt repository for debian and ubuntu
Many OpenSource projects doing that already, which greatly helps to update software

Not only for Ubuntu but also for Debian please

yes that would be good to have

Every time there is a major Ubuntu update, I have to re-install the driver. It's a real pain.

Canonical do provide closed source drivers in repository: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers-367

Since the driver is closed-source, Canonical will definitely "not" provide it in the repository.

Maybe do a PPA or some sort of repo for the software so it can be easily installed and upgraded.

I'd own two of your products right now if this were a feature you had.

our host your own ppa that would work

As a long-time software developer for high-performance computation,
I agree with the other posters about the desirability of making your support
code fit in with the rest of the Linux world. A .deb file would achieve this goal
for very little effort on your part.

I also heard that your software violates/violated the GPL in some way,
and that you still have blobs of secret code in the compression area.
These problems may have been resolved by now, but if not, I recommend that
you do resolve them, to be a better member of the community.

Robert Bernecky

And by extension for Linux Mint or any other Debian distro.

it would also make a lot more sense to provide the software as a .deb file, instead of some executable .run file that does not cooperate with the system's package manager at all. it would also allow for much easier removal and upgrades of the software.