On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:56:18PM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote: > hi, > Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2015, 11:17 +0100 schrieb Mark Shuttleworth: > > > > Snappy shell needs not be required for all snappy based images and/or > > > needs > > > not be on port 22, it is rather an optional interface to snappy, much like > > > webdm is an useful tool and default web user experience. > > > > Here I disagree; if it's worth doing, it's worth doing universally. > > > > Personally, I think: > > > > * it's worth doing by default on all snappy systems > > * the jump to a "normal Linux shell" needs to be crisp and obvious and easy > > * interaction with SSH needs to be straightforward and well thought > > through for cloud and device instances of snappy > > i think flexibility is key here... > > what about people that want to use snappy instances with (potentially > proprietary and unconfigurable) tools that expect a proper shell on port > 22 for operation ?
Out of curiosity, what are these traditional tools doing? There isn't much you can do without frameworks installed. I don't think we even want to expose systemd as part of the product, we just have a services entry in the snaps and they have their in package health checks that can be checked with a snappy primitive. > it is ok to have a snappy shell on port 22 for the general use-case but > we should have a switch for people deploying images to turn this off and > be able to use snappy in an old fashioned context of "just having ssh" > so these installs can still be operated in such environments. snappy config (or gadget snap) would solve that. -- snappy-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
