On 02/22/2017 08:35 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> Note that if you want to fine-tune a sandbox for a single application,
> bubblewrap is great. However, what I wanted is that I can install the
> GNOME packages in one tree and then create other trees out of it, for
> example one with gnome
Hello,
A while ago I started pacman and pacbub for file system isolation of
pacman packages. pacpak and pacbub are dead now. They were the wrong
approach for user space isolation. It all gets too hacky. It’s not KISS.
I don’t like it anymore and would rather use GNU Guix for isolating
users’ appli
On 08/06/2016 03:40 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> Thank you. I now tend towards pacbub; bubblepac seems too long. pacbub
> is similar to pacman and pacpak. It is also a pun on pacman because in
> German “der bub” is “the boy”.
I like that too :)
Cheers,
Bennett
--
GPG fingerprint: 871
2016/08/06 22:40 "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" :
>
> On 08/05/2016 10:50 PM, Bennett Piater wrote:
> > Thanks for letting us know!
> >
> > I like bubblepac, it sounds good :)
> >
>
> Thank you. I now tend towards pacbub; bubblepac seems too long. pacbub
> is similar to pacman and pacpak. It is also
On 08/05/2016 10:50 PM, Bennett Piater wrote:
> Thanks for letting us know!
>
> I like bubblepac, it sounds good :)
>
Thank you. I now tend towards pacbub; bubblepac seems too long. pacbub
is similar to pacman and pacpak. It is also a pun on pacman because in
German “der bub” is “the boy”.
Rega
> I will need a new name for a pacpak without Flatpak (bpac and pacwrap
> are already taken; maybe bubblepac) but I will continue working on it
> slowly…
Thanks for letting us know!
I like bubblepac, it sounds good :)
Cheers,
Bennett
--
GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047 7DB3 DDED 5FC4 47B2 26C7 E577
On 07/19/2016 08:37 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 07:03 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
>> This is a nice and useful project, but I think we could be served
>> better in the short term by having supported firejail profiles
>> for things like Firefox and LibreOffi
On 07/20/2016 01:11 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
> FWIW I couldn't get Firejail's Firefox profile to work.
>
> What's the link for bubblewrap? It's such a generic term that it's
> hard to look up.
>
bubblewrap-git is in the AUR; it didn’t work for me though the last time
I tried.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:37 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 07:03 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
>> This is a nice and useful project, but I think we could be served
>> better in the short term by having supported firejail profiles
>> for things like Firefox and
On 07/19/2016 07:03 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
> This is a nice and useful project, but I think we could be served
> better in the short term by having supported firejail profiles
> for things like Firefox and LibreOffice that are easy to use.
>
Firejail is a different design wit
This is a nice and useful project, but I think we could be served
better in the short term by having supported firejail profiles
for things like Firefox and LibreOffice that are easy to use.
Hello,
On 07/14/2016 12:46 AM, Damjan Georgievski via arch-general wrote:
> Ubuntu is doing something similar it seems
> https://bregmatter.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/x11-applications-and-unity-8/
>
> This is for their non-deb (deb-less?) distro version, they install
> debs in containers,
> each ge
On 07/13/2016 05:46 PM, Damjan Georgievski via arch-general wrote:
> On 10 July 2016 at 11:05, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > A specter is haunting the GNU/Linux ecosystem: the specter of per-user
>> > containerization. Software like Flatpak and Snappy promise fully
>> >
On 10 July 2016 at 11:05, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A specter is haunting the GNU/Linux ecosystem: the specter of per-user
> containerization. Software like Flatpak and Snappy promise fully
> sandboxed GNU/Linux application bundles (instead of merely launching an
> application
On 07/12/2016 09:29 AM, Chao Feng via arch-general wrote:
> Florian,
>
> What is the target user of pacpak? Arch users or App developers?
>
> I think Flatpak and Arch rolling release model mainly fix the same issue:
> Shipping cutting edge softwares quickly and stay close with upstream.
>
> Arc
On Monday 11 July 2016 18:57:38 pelzflorian wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 05:01 PM, Maxwell Anselm via arch-general wrote:
> > I think the tool is great Florian, but I do not think that it warrants
> > official support. Consider examples like pacgem or pip2pkgbuild. These
> > tools help integrate Ruby/Pyt
On 07/11/2016 06:14 PM, G. Schlisio wrote:
> […]
> an install command would likely look like -S like in pacman?
> whats the base for installation? PKGBUILDs (from AUR/ABS), official
> repos, some new platform containing build recipes for pacpak?
>
pacpak will use the official repos (or other repos
On 07/11/2016 05:01 PM, Maxwell Anselm via arch-general wrote:
> I think the tool is great Florian, but I do not think that it warrants
> official support. Consider examples like pacgem or pip2pkgbuild. These
> tools help integrate Ruby/Python packages (which are usually managed via a
> separate pa
> `pacpak -Syu` would therefore always install exactly the same version of
> the software as available with regular pacman.
-Syu with pacman means refresh databases and install all available
updates. does this mean pacpak execute this logic on all installed
containers as pacman executes on all ins
On 07/10/2016 10:43 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> pacpak is not meant to redistribute already packaged containers from
> upstream. Instead it can be used to create containers from existing Arch
> packages. Basically, a copy of Arch is installed into a container
> runtime. Then different
I think the tool is great Florian, but I do not think that it warrants
official support. Consider examples like pacgem or pip2pkgbuild. These
tools help integrate Ruby/Python packages (which are usually managed via a
separate package manager) into pacman. They are great for users who want
pacman to
On 07/11/2016 03:32 AM, 郑文辉(Techlive Zheng) via arch-general wrote:
> Florian, I love it, the tool itself is a break-through, just depends how we
> use it properly.
>
Thank you. I’m happy to get some positive feedback :) .
Florian, I love it, the tool itself is a break-through, just depends how we
use it properly.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:43 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) <
pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> On 07/10/2016 08:43 PM, Bennett Piater wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply.
> > That would be the best you c
On 07/10/2016 08:43 PM, Bennett Piater wrote:
> Thanks for your reply.
> That would be the best you could do on the Arch side, but the problem is
> mostly that every upstream dev would need to maintain and keep his
> container up to date, isn't it? :)
>
pacpak is not meant to redistribute already
On 07/10/2016 02:18 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> The intention is that, once implemented, `pacpak -Syu` or maybe `pacpak
> -Su` will install a current version of all apps and runtimes. Old
> versions of apps and app runtimes that are not used by any app could be
> cleaned by `pacpak -S
On 07/10/2016 03:22 PM, Mauro Santos via arch-general wrote:
> Personally I'd rather keep using the good old packages _but_ it would be
> nice to have an official tool to manage/run/create flatpak packages,
> this just to make sure that in case one needs to use a flatpak package
> nothing will scre
On 07/10/2016 04:45 PM, Levente Polyak wrote:
> We, as the Security Team, are strongly against any move to officially
> ship bundles that manage their dependency versions itself instead of
> regular software builds.
> […]
With pacpak, it will be the user’s responsibility to update the bundles
just
On 07/10/2016 11:05 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> [...] Bundles ship with the version
> of their dependencies which they need. Dependencies are not
> force-upgraded with the operating system, but easily upgradable by the
> bundle creator.
We, as the Security Team, are strongly against an
On 07/10/16 at 01:59pm, LoneVVolf wrote:
> IF flatpak is to become supported on AL, i'd prefer pacman to handle it
> instead of a separate application.
flatpak is packaged in [extra], which for me means that it is indeed
supported.
>
> My personal preference though is for AL community to treat f
On 10-07-2016 13:18, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 07/10/2016 01:59 PM, LoneVVolf wrote:
>> My personal preference though is for AL community to treat flatpak
>> similar as derivative distros.
>>
>> something like : flatpak is unsupported on Arch linux, ask the flatpak
>> creat
Hello,
On 07/10/2016 12:52 PM, Bennett Piater wrote:
> Are you planning to address the catastrophy that ensues when 5000
> different versions of important libraries are installed at the same
> time, most of which will always be 5 critical security updates behind?
>
The intention is that, once im
Hello,
On 07/10/2016 01:59 PM, LoneVVolf wrote:
> My personal preference though is for AL community to treat flatpak
> similar as derivative distros.
>
> something like : flatpak is unsupported on Arch linux, ask the flatpak
> creator(s) for help.
Hm… If there is not that much desire to support
IF flatpak is to become supported on AL, i'd prefer pacman to handle it
instead of a separate application.
My personal preference though is for AL community to treat flatpak
similar as derivative distros.
something like : flatpak is unsupported on Arch linux, ask the flatpak
creator(s) for h
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:52:04PM +0200, Bennett Piater wrote:
> I am very cynical about this container trend... :/
That's exactly the right attitude.
--
Tomasz Kramkowski | GPG: 40B037BA0A5B8680 | Web: https://the-tk.com/
> A specter is haunting the GNU/Linux ecosystem: the specter of per-user
> containerization. Software like Flatpak and Snappy promise fully
> sandboxed GNU/Linux application bundles (instead of merely launching an
> application with fewer privileges but without hiding the operating
> system, like B
Hello,
A specter is haunting the GNU/Linux ecosystem: the specter of per-user
containerization. Software like Flatpak and Snappy promise fully
sandboxed GNU/Linux application bundles (instead of merely launching an
application with fewer privileges but without hiding the operating
system, like Bub
36 matches
Mail list logo
