Hi Sergio, The question asked was actually how to get snapcraft to include dependencies *inside the snap* so that it works as it does with strict snaps, bundling the dependencies.
Your response was about system libraries rather than bundled in-snap libraries, I believe. This should definitely work fine, right? On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Sergio Schvezov < sergio.schve...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:17:27 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > > On 17/01/17 22:22, Sergio Schvezov wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Is that a work in progress constraint, or is it the intended long term > > behaviour? (I'll try it out shortly in any case.) > > > > I ask because currently, if a package is explicitly stated as a build > > dependency, then with `strict` confinement it's automatically > > included in the > > final snap where necessary. What makes `classic` confinement unable to > > automatically handle the inclusion of build dependencies in the same way? > > The logic is still run, but the resulting binary in classic uses rpath and > no dynamic loading so there is no resolution to a on-system library we can > pick up. I guess we can do some magic, but it feels it might be either > fragile or make the build process a lot slower. We will need to look into > it, but not short term. > > -- > Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device > > -- > Snapcraft mailing list > Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ > mailman/listinfo/snapcraft > -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
