The symlink requirement for classic snaps (and classic confinement is viewed by snapd lead @gniemeyer as transitional, as I understand it, pending all snaps being able to use strict confinement) is described on the snappy Fedora install pagehttps://docs.snapcraft.io/installing-snap-on-fedora/6755 …
-
-
I suspect Fedora don't allow it by default for the same reason that Arch don't - it's not FHS-compliant? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Snap#Classic_snaps … You could file a bug against snappy for this https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+filebug or against Fedora.
@Det_Conan_Kudo might be able to clarify further :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ads20000 @BabyWogue and
If you have any problems with snappy, on whatever supported distribution (https://docs.snapcraft.io/installing-snapd/6735 …) please report bugs or post topics on http://forum.snapcraft.io and the team, I'm sure, would be happy to help. Or post a topic about supporting a distro not on the list!pic.twitter.com/Sv9GG1htSk
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That /snap path should have never been allowed to exist. There was no reason for it and even before the mere existence of classic snaps, I argued against the path. It was removed from Arch and FESCo rejected it for Fedora due to it not being FHS compliant.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
We're happy with how /snap turned out actually, and still think it's the correct decision. Of course, one may always hide its contents into /var because these tolerate anything without you accounting it as an abuse (!), but that doesn't mean it's good organization. (1/N)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gniemeyer @Det_Conan_Kudo and
What's inside /snap is application content that is typically spread elsewhere in the system, except it may not be spread out given the nature of snaps, with the application data being mounted atomically and with multiple revisions available. (2/N)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gniemeyer @Det_Conan_Kudo and
So in essence it's unlike anything else because it *is* unlike anything else that is packaged in distributions as first class content. Mutable snap data still goes into /var/snap/, with path prefixes matching those in /snap with revisions, etc. Clean and easy to follow. (3/N)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Going back to what
@BabyWogue said though, this might just show philosophical differences between snapd and Flatpak (and indeed between Ubuntu and Fedora). Snapd and Ubuntu are generally more happy to go against upstream protocol than Flatpak and Fedora.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Every single packaging system was born as a departure from the norm. In other words, without willingness to improve on the established conventions, there's no deb, rpm, snaps, or anything else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is this how
@linuxfoundation intended the FHS be changed? To be fair, it is listed merely as a reference, so a violation of FHS might not be a problem at all and Arch and Fedora would be wrong to cite that as a reason for rejecting it? https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/fhs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Most distributions, including Ubuntu, use it as an important guideline. But there's a chicken and egg problem when updating such specs: we couldn't prove it was relevant without making it relevant.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.