On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 05:11:06PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to > snapcraft/snappy. > > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.html
The fact is that third parties ship unconfined binaries directly to users today. Look at the number of projects which instruct users to add a third party deb repository to sources.list, or to "curl ... | sudo sh" or similar. >From this perspective, Snappy improves the situation massively. If a user's choice is between running some third party's binary installer as root, and installing a Snap, then it's clear which is the better option. It's all very well to say that all of these Snaps should instead be distribution packages in backports (or equivalent) pockets, but see: reality. There's a reason fpm exists. And even if distribution archive were perfectly up to date, distribution packages don't currently provide the same level of individual package isolation that Snaps do. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
