On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 01:46:04 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 07/02/17 00:24, Kyle Fazzari wrote: >> The fact that an empty directory is created here is a bug[1]. It should >> only create that directory if there's something to put in there. What >> Sergio is saying is this: >> >> Snapcraft-specific things, like hooks from snapcraft parts, command >> wrappers (eventually, not yet) will end up in the snap/ directory of the >> built snap. This has no bearing on the snap format, it's something >> internal to snapcraft (it could just as easily have chosen to place >> those things in the foo/ directory). >> >> The things in meta/ are specific to snapd. This directory is literally >> what defines "this random squashfs image" to be a snap. > > OK, makes sense. BTW, I hope I didn't come over as overly > negative in my reply > to Sergio: if so it wasn't intended. > > Can I however raise a plea that `meta/` should contain > licensing information as > a requirement? Even if it's not actively used by snapd right now, it makes > sense as a location and it would also make sense (in future) to > be able to do > things like > > snap license whatever > > to check the available licensing information. > > More generally, it seems like a good idea to me that (i) snap packages must > contain licensing information, (ii) it will be available in a standardized > location both in the snap package definition and the generated > snap package, and > (iii) this will be enforced/guaranteed by snapcraft.
Can you log a bug against snapd? https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+filebug -- 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
