On 5 October 2017 at 09:56, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5 October 2017 at 09:52, Brian May <b...@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hud...@canonical.com> writes:
>> > Can you elaborate? Do you have apparmor enabled? I am aware that there
>> are
>> > problems on stable currently but being explicit reduces guessing.
>>
>> See the stack overflow question. The major issue was the error when
>> trying to remove an existing container.
>>
>> 2017-09-09T15:08:29+10:00 ERROR cannot remove snap file "robotica", will
>> retry in 3 mins: snap-robotica-x1.mount failed to stop: timeout
>>
>
> Ah OK. I've not seen this.
>
> I also had problems with incorrect permissions randomly appearing, even
>> though I used exactly the same process every time.
>
>
> Or that. Time to rebuild my stretch vm I guess (I accidentally upgraded it
> to sid...).
>

I've rebuilt my VM and things seem to mostly work (so long as I leave
apparmor off). Can you provide reproduction instructions for either of your
problems?


> > Can you try just installing the package from unstable rather than
>> > rebuilding it? (sometimes static linking does solve problems :-p)
>>
>> I was guessing it won't be possible to install the package straight from
>> unstable onto a stable system, and am not interested in upgrading at
>> this point to unstable. However I might be wrong here.
>
>
> Yes, telling everyone to upgrade to unstable is not a good answer.
>
> It does look to me from staring at Depends: as if snapd 2.27.6-2 from sid
> will install OK on stretch. But I haven't tried it.
>

You can install the deb from testing on stretch, it turns out.

Cheers,
mwh

In any case, my
>> research led me to believe the first error *might* be a kernel
>> issue... I believe my packages to be fine.
>>
>> The only response I got however was an implied "don't use snap" and "I
>> personally don't like the concept of snap". which wasn't really helpful.
>>
>
> Yes. Let's see if I can find some better answers...
>
> Cheers,
> mwh
>

Reply via email to