Re: Snaps and Fedora

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:27:19PM +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > I very much share this view. Snaps are just glorified zip files > (squashfs images) that have just enough meta-data to make themselves > useful. Because snaps just declare the integration the particular > implementation can figure

Re: Snaps and Fedora

t; it came to evolving the Snap system. I was at the spring with Neal. I will add some notes on my perspective. > > There are some interesting highlights from the event that I think are > quite relevant to Fedora: > > * Snaps are intended to evolve beyond Ubuntu. While snaps have their >

Re: Snaps and Fedora

On Sat, 2016-07-23 at 02:46 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > I know that the Workstation WG is very much behind Flatpak right now, > but I see no reason that we cannot offer both. In fact, it is in the > best interests of our users to fully enable both systems to the best > extent we can, so that they

Re: Snaps and Fedora

On Jul 22, 2016 5:48 PM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > This is done through the "plugs" and "slots" that can be used to > create interfaces among them. This is a true superset of the > capability provided by Flatpak through Portals, since it can be used > to export non-DBus oriented

Re: Snaps and Fedora

g the Snap system. > Thanks Neal for sharing your notes. It's interesting to have accurate status of snappy on Fedora. > There are some interesting highlights from the event that I think are > quite relevant to Fedora: > > * Snaps are intended to evolve beyond Ubuntu. While snap

Snaps and Fedora

possible for a person to represent such a diverse community such as ours), I ensured that Fedora was part of the conversation when it came to evolving the Snap system. There are some interesting highlights from the event that I think are quite relevant to Fedora: * Snaps are intended to evolve