Well, kind of.. I think we should kill it still, but your study case is a good one.
There's an important distinction between "firefox" and "firefox.mozilla". I wouldn't call the first one a qualified name (it's the opposite.. it's the unqualified default). Agree with Mark, though (and with you, as that was likely your underlying point). It would be ugly to have 90% of the snaps coming with .canonical or .ubuntu, so it's more polished to show nothing there. This sounds more like a DisplayName, and unlike our current usage of QualifiedName, it's very rarely used. For example, today we have QualifiedName being called to define what the path name under /snaps is, right? That's unnecessary/unwanted as we shouldn't have two snaps with the same name installed, and when multiple developers publish under a snap name they share the data for that snap. So it would be /snaps/firefox, no matter if it's mozilla, canonical, or chipaca that is publishing that snap. On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM, John Lenton <john.len...@canonical.com> wrote: > On 11 March 2016 at 14:41, Mark Shuttleworth <m...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > We'll show the developer if it's not the publisher, otherwise nothing. > > it sounds to me like QualifiedName isn't going away, after all. > -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-- snappy-devel mailing list snappy-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
