Yes, I see your point. Perhaps a concept of optional vs required is needed.
Mike On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Kyle Fazzari <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Mike, > > On Jul 13, 2016 3:46 AM, "MikeB" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I understand why you want manual connections for some "critcal" > interfaces. However, if you're going to require manual intervention, the > snapd should be smart enough to wait for the required connections before > starting up any daemons that have plugs for those "critical" interfaces. > Perhaps even nagging about unconnected plugs in the snap. > > I understand where you're coming from here. However, I can imagine > use-cases where such a daemon can actually run successfully without one of > its plugs (particularly when seccomp starts using ERRNO), and have extra > functionality if it's connected. If snapd didn't start services until all > their plugs were connected, such a scenario would be impossible. Also, keep > in mind that the user can disconnect interfaces at any time, so ideally > daemons would be able to handle such things (though I realize that's not > always the case). > > Just my two cents. > > Kyle >
-- Snapcraft mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
