On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 20:13 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> snapd is the tool that gets you the "snap" command ...
> (i.e: "snap install $package.snap") and is needed to run snaps
Thank you,
I installed snapd.
Regards,
Ralf
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:27:45 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>you want snapd though and uninstall snappy again (sadly the snappy
>media player own the package name a little longer already :)
I didn't install snappy for Ubuntu.
Arch's "snappy" is the same as Ubuntu's "libsnappy1v5".
Arch:
$
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 15:51 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >
> > in case you want to know more details ...
> If I find the time to care about it, I'll give it a go.
> I started with installing snappy and snapcraft ;).
cool ...
>
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 15:51 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> in case you want to know more details ...
If I find the time to care about it, I'll give it a go.
I started with installing snappy and snapcraft ;).
[rocketmouse@archlinux moonstudio]$ sudo systemd-nspawn -q dpkg -l libsnappy1v5
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 13:17 +0200 schrieb Oliver Grawert:
...
there is a very detailed description at
https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/guides/security-whitepaper/
in case you want to know more details ...
ciao
oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 12:27 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 10:34 +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > but see: reality
>
> I only see an advantage for Ubuntu LTS releases. For regular Ubuntu
> releases, let alone rolling releases, such as Arch, this approach IMO is
> a step
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:27:47PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 10:34 +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > but see: reality
>
> I only see an advantage for Ubuntu LTS releases. For regular Ubuntu
> releases, let alone rolling releases, such as Arch, this approach IMO is
> a step
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 10:34 +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> but see: reality
I only see an advantage for Ubuntu LTS releases. For regular Ubuntu
releases, let alone rolling releases, such as Arch, this approach IMO is
a step into the wrong direction.
I consider to use it for my Ubuntu LTS, but just
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 05:11:06PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to
> snapcraft/snappy.
>
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.html
The fact is that third parties ship unconfined binaries directly
