Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker

Sergio Schvezov sergio.schvezov at
Wed Jan 18 12:12:34 UTC 2017

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:17:27 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 17/01/17 22:22, Sergio Schvezov wrote:
> Is that a work in progress constraint, or is it the intended long term 
> behaviour?  (I'll try it out shortly in any case.)
> I ask because currently, if a package is explicitly stated as a build 
> dependency, then with `strict` confinement it's automatically 
> included in the 
> final snap where necessary.  What makes `classic` confinement unable to 
> automatically handle the inclusion of build dependencies in the same way?

After a quick but thorough conversation with Gustavo we agreed that this is the wrong path to take as it might not be deterministic or people might get surprised about things included that shouldn't have been.

There needs to be a clear line between `build-packages` and `stage-packages`. With that in mind snapcraft (even for `strict` snaps) will still crawl all the libraries and error on missing ones with a list of those that are missing. This should be something one can disable and set to ignore as some of the missing libraries might be provided by a content interface slot from another snap.

Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device

More information about the Snapcraft mailing list