Re: [Bug 1590679] Re: Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

[XiaoGuo, Liu]

In my case, I just use this service inside the app. No other apps use it
but making the apparmor error gone away. My snapcraft.yaml is at:

https://github.com/liu-xiao-guo/xmradio/blob/master/snap/snapcraft.yaml

Thanks for your explanation.

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Jamie Strandboge 
wrote:

> Yes! :) I think it is helpful to think about what the application is
> doing. It is binding to a well-known name so that other processes can
> access it through the well-known name. In other words, it can be thought
> of as a service. In snappy terms, it is a slot implementation of a
> service for the DBus apis the service provides under the well-known DBus
> name.
>
> Due note that if the snap is being distributed via the Ubuntu public
> store, then the initial upload will require a human to grant use of this
> well-known name, but once that is done, subsequent uploads aren't
> blocked.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1590679
>
> Title:
>   Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)
>
> Status in Snappy:
>   Fix Released
> Status in snapd package in Ubuntu:
>   Fix Released
>
> Bug description:
>   Many applications require to own a name on the session D-Bus. This is
>   often used for app uniqueness and D-Bus launching (e.g. many GNOME
>   apps).
>
>   For example (lp:~ubuntu-desktop/+junk/gnome-mahjongg-snap) attempting
>   to run gives:
>
>   $ /snap/bin/gnome-mahjongg
>   Failed to register: GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.AccessDenied:
> Connection ":1.141" is not allowed to own the service
> "org.gnome.gnome-mahjongg" due to AppArmor policy
>
>   I would expect the unity7 interface to allow bus name ownership so
>   these apps can work.
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1590679/+subscriptions
>


-- 
XiaoGuo, Liu

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1590679

Title:
  Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1590679/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Re: [Bug 1590679] Re: Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

[Mark Shuttleworth]

On 10/06/16 06:36, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> If it's a blank check, I don't see many advantages over asking for
> unity7 itself. Once we want to force the declaration, we can just
> introduce the actual interface.

My only reason for an orthogonal interface was so that we don't end up
duplicating the same with gnome-shell and elementary etc.

Mark

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1590679

Title:
  Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1590679/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Re: [Bug 1590679] Re: Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Opinions! Always! How about 'session-dbus-bind' ? :)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1590679

Title:
  Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1590679/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Re: [Bug 1590679] Re: Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Can we have an interface which is "bind to the user session dbus", and
then evolve it to add parameters, being a list of the names you want to
actually bind? That way we could start appropving those apps now with
"any" use dbus name, and evolve over time to require that they itemise
their interfaces?

Upon reflection I think $SNAPNAME is a red herring, its too inflexible
and too difficult to predict over time.

Mark

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1590679

Title:
  Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1590679/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Re: [Bug 1590679] Re: Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

[Mark Shuttleworth]

On 09/06/16 17:41, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> That's something most of GNOME apps do nowadays ... Jamie, Tyler, do you
> know if it would be easy to allow that in the unity7 apparmor rules?

I bet we can make an interface which lets the snap own an explicit bus
name, yes.

I don't think we yet have parameterized interfaces, but perhaps the bus
name could be forced to be the same as the snap name in the first cut
(and later we add the ability to specify a particular bus name).

I would make this a separate, orthogonal interface to unity7 so it can
be used more widely than just Unity.

Mark

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1590679

Title:
  Apps can't own session bus names (unity7 interface)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1590679/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs