Top-level package names, UX questions

Loïc Minier loic.minier at
Tue Feb 24 13:57:18 UTC 2015

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Martin Albisetti <
martin.albisetti at> wrote:

> Option 1 is tempting, since it effectively allows package name
> transitions with no need to change the packages themselves, but for
> sideloading it's a bit awkwards as you have to provide both a package
> and a piece of metadata separately.

Maybe it's also more natural to hook addition of a toplevel name into the
review process by adding it to the metadata?

I find it wouldn't be clear how we identify the app + store namespace
metadata combination; would this be a meta-snap? would it have a version?
the same version of the original snap might come with and without the
toplevel name?

> Options 2 and 3 are similar enough, that I think it mostly comes down
> to how it affects the pieces identified before. I wouldn't want you to
> have been running "apache.beuno.start" for a year, and then suddenly
> with an update it stops working because it gets upgraded to
> "apache.start".

Perhaps we can simply keep apache.beuno.start even after addition of

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the snappy-devel mailing list