Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-29 Thread David C. Rankin
On 11/24/2016 08:19 AM, Martin Kühne via arch-general wrote: > This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. Oh > look, the apps are not secure, the apps sometimes crash. But you know > what, let's take a high level approach, because we're such great > managers. Let's NOT make b

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-26 Thread Carsten Mattner via arch-general
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Maarten de Vries > To my knowledge, makechrootpkg uses systemd-nspawn, which means it is > already using a container. Reproducible builds will need quite a bit more > work than simply using containers though. I only meant reproducible environment but failed to ma

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-26 Thread Carsten Mattner via arch-general
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Bennett Piater wrote: >> Another very useful case would be using containers as a chroot replacement >> for having clean (only what's in the recipe), reproducable build environments >> for building arch packages. It would also allow installing makedeps only in >> th

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-26 Thread Carsten Mattner via arch-general
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Maarten de Vries wrote: > > > On 26 November 2016 at 15:08, Carsten Mattner via arch-general > wrote: >> >> >> Another very useful case would be using containers as a chroot replacement >> for having clean (only what's in the recipe), reproducable build >> environ

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-26 Thread Maarten de Vries via arch-general
On 26 November 2016 at 15:08, Carsten Mattner via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > Another very useful case would be using containers as a chroot replacement > for having clean (only what's in the recipe), reproducable build > environments > for building arch packages. It woul

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-26 Thread Bennett Piater
> Another very useful case would be using containers as a chroot replacement > for having clean (only what's in the recipe), reproducable build environments > for building arch packages. It would also allow installing makedeps only in > the container/chroot or make cross-compilation easier to manag

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-26 Thread Carsten Mattner via arch-general
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:01 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: > Containers are an attempt to solve multiple issues. One is being a > replacement for bundles. When people sell and distribute a proprietary > app/game, they presumably want it to run on as many systems as possible > with as littl

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-25 Thread pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
Containers are an attempt to solve multiple issues. One is being a replacement for bundles. When people sell and distribute a proprietary app/game, they presumably want it to run on as many systems as possible with as little effort as possible. Having to rely on volunteer maintainers is not good, n

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-25 Thread sivmu
Am 24.11.2016 um 15:19 schrieb Martin Kühne via arch-general: > This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. Oh > look, the apps are not secure, the apps sometimes crash. But you know > what, let's take a high level approach, because we're such great > managers. Let's NOT mak

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-25 Thread Jack L. Frost
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:19:49PM +0100, Martin Kühne via arch-general wrote: > This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. Containers are useful — I'm saying this as an admin with 10 years of experience. Having semi-isolated controlled environments for testing, building, ju

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-24 Thread Leonid Isaev
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:41:12PM +0100, SET wrote: > >This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. > > This topic has gone generic, so here are my 2 cents : those who don 't trust > an app should just avoid it, and not even look at it; no one is bound to use > an app; don '

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-24 Thread SET
>This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. This topic has gone generic, so here are my 2 cents : those who don 't trust an app should just avoid it, and not even look at it; no one is bound to use an app; don 't contain, use something else. --

Re: [arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-24 Thread Lukas Rose
> On 24 Nov 2016, at 15:19, Martin Kühne via arch-general > wrote: > > This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. I totally agree. Sandboxing and containerisation is no cure for bad code. When you have a leaking pipe, you shouldn't simply but a bucket below it to keep

[arch-general] On containers. WAS: Re: snapcraft.io ...

2016-11-24 Thread Martin Kühne via arch-general
This whole sandboxing and containerisation idiocy is such a pain. Oh look, the apps are not secure, the apps sometimes crash. But you know what, let's take a high level approach, because we're such great managers. Let's NOT make better apps and a better stack by actually writing better multimedia l