On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 20:13 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> snapd is the tool that gets you the "snap" command ...
> (i.e: "snap install $package.snap") and is needed to run snaps
Thank you,
I installed snapd.
Regards,
Ralf
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 19:47 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:27:45 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >
> > you want snapd though and uninstall snappy again (sadly the snappy
> > media player own the package name a little longer already :)
> I didn't install snappy for U
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:27:45 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>you want snapd though and uninstall snappy again (sadly the snappy
>media player own the package name a little longer already :)
I didn't install snappy for Ubuntu.
Arch's "snappy" is the same as Ubuntu's "libsnappy1v5".
Arch:
$ pacma
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 15:51 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >
> > in case you want to know more details ...
> If I find the time to care about it, I'll give it a go.
> I started with installing snappy and snapcraft ;).
cool ...
>
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 15:51 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> in case you want to know more details ...
If I find the time to care about it, I'll give it a go.
I started with installing snappy and snapcraft ;).
[rocketmouse@archlinux moonstudio]$ sudo systemd-nspawn -q dpkg -l libsnappy1v5
snapcraf
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 13:17 +0200 schrieb Oliver Grawert:
...
there is a very detailed description at
https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/guides/security-whitepaper/
in case you want to know more details ...
ciao
oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mess
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 12:27 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 10:34 +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > but see: reality
>
> I only see an advantage for Ubuntu LTS releases. For regular Ubuntu
> releases, let alone rolling releases, such as Arch, this approach IMO is
> a step
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:27:47PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 10:34 +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > but see: reality
>
> I only see an advantage for Ubuntu LTS releases. For regular Ubuntu
> releases, let alone rolling releases, such as Arch, this approach IMO is
> a step int
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 10:34 +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> but see: reality
I only see an advantage for Ubuntu LTS releases. For regular Ubuntu
releases, let alone rolling releases, such as Arch, this approach IMO is
a step into the wrong direction.
I consider to use it for my Ubuntu LTS, but just f
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
hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 00:08 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> The important concern is related to lose track of what is inside all
> those containers. Imagine some containers depend on
>
except that there are no containers ...
yes, it might be that an app ships a vulnerable TLS lib in the
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:08:48 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>The important concern is related to lose track of what is inside all
>those containers. Imagine some containers depend on
>
>https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=cve-2014-0160
>
>Two years ago, all communities were aware about it an
The important concern is related to lose track of what is inside all
those containers. Imagine some containers depend on
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=cve-2014-0160
Two years ago, all communities were aware about it and after a few days
it wasn't an issue anymore.
If the so call
hi,
Am Sonntag, den 10.07.2016, 17:11 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> Hi,
>
> there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to
> snapcraft/snappy.
>
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.h
> tml
well, this is about flatpack not snappy ... compari
On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 17:11 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to
> snapcraft/snappy.
>
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.h
> tml
>
That's the security team going off into lala land with a bu
Hi,
there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to
snapcraft/snappy.
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.html
I guess snapcraft/snappy and anything similar could be useful, but
indeed, IMO those are good reasons to not become too much used to
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 17:21:03 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>hi,
>Am Samstag, den 09.07.2016, 16:52 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
>> Hi,
>>
>> on Ubuntu devel "snapcraft" was mentioned today. I made some Internet
>> research and Snappy was even mentioned on a RME forum. I wonder it
>> it's
>> a sandbo
hi,
Am Samstag, den 09.07.2016, 16:52 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> Hi,
>
> on Ubuntu devel "snapcraft" was mentioned today. I made some Internet
> research and Snappy was even mentioned on a RME forum. I wonder it
> it's
> a sandbox or virtualization, that could cause issues with real-time
> and/
18 matches
Mail list logo
