Hm, I was assuming that the PYTHONHOME leaking was due to things in the snap specifically (is the source to the snap available?), but are they set by snapd or snap-confine or something?
Cheers, mwh On 24 January 2017 at 00:09, Gustavo Niemeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm wondering if maybe we should simply drop all snapcraft wrappers for > classic snaps, specifically. > > As it is, the amount of magic that is actually intended for strict snaps > seems to be hurting the behavior and understanding of classic snaps. I > doubt adding even more magic will help. > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Stuart Bishop < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 20 January 2017 at 19:59, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Any recommendations for dealing with those? >>> >> >> Do exec* and friends need to be patched somehow, so that if processes are >> spawned from a classic snap with targets outside snapd containment then the >> environment is cleaned? >> >> I think this will affect all classic snaps that need to run subprocesses, >> such as screen, vim, tmux... with other wrapper variables like the LD_* >> settings leaking :-( >> >> >> -- >> Stuart Bishop <[email protected]> >> >> -- >> Snapcraft mailing list >> [email protected] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm >> an/listinfo/snapcraft >> >> > > > -- > > gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net > > -- > Snapcraft mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ > mailman/listinfo/snapcraft > >
-- Snapcraft mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
