Consider also that we likely want to support remote unasserted installs for alternate stores [1], so they are fully orthogonal concepts.
So we have all four local/remote asserted/unasserted combos. And I agree that "sideloading" is no longer a useful term. -bret [1] With whatever warnings or override flags/configs we feel appropriate for that use-case. On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 07:15:25PM -0300, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > Hello all, > > With assertions finally being put to great use, it's time to kill the term > "sideloading". That term does a disservice to our conversations, because it > is vague and also limits the thinking around what is possible. > > Whenever we use "sideloading", we mean one of two things: > > 1. The installation of a snap from the local filesystem > 2. The installation of a snap that is not backed by assertions > > We can talk about these cases using this actual terminology. To talk about > the second case tersely we can use "unasserted", which is apparently a real > term [1]: > > "1. resting on a statement or claim unsupported by evidence or proof; > alleged:" > > That's exactly what we mean by that. > > With assertions, we can have the first case without the second, though. A > snap in the local filesystem doesn't necessarily have to be unasserted. > > So: > > Case 1: sideload => local snap > Case 2: sideload => unasserted snap > > How does that sound? > > > [1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unasserted > > > gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Snapcraft mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
