On 27/03/17 04:33, Michael Hall wrote:
Because your snap is going to pull in all of your dependencies, doing
one snap per tool will likely result in more duplication and thus more
disk space than providing it all as a single package.
That's a very good point. On the other hand, the disk space
On 03/24/2017 07:40 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 25/03/17 00:27, mhall119 wrote:
>> Usually you would include all related tools in the same snap. Is there a
>> need to having them separate if they all need to be installed together?
>
> Mostly that they don't technically _need_ to all be
On 25/03/17 00:27, mhall119 wrote:
Usually you would include all related tools in the same snap. Is there a
need to having them separate if they all need to be installed together?
Mostly that they don't technically _need_ to all be together. I mean, why not
split stuff up if its components ca
Usually you would include all related tools in the same snap. Is there a
need to having them separate if they all need to be installed together?
On Mar 24, 2017 6:42 PM, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Is it possible -- or are there plans for --
Hello folks,
Is it possible -- or are there plans for -- snap 'meta-packages' whose only job
is to make sure that multiple related snap packages get installed together?
The use-case I'm thinking of is a collective 'dlang' meta-package that would
install a group of snaps each providing a diffe
