[RFC] Improving hardware access for snaps

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

What happens if the device moves? For example, a ttyUSB0 can become ttyUSB1
if one unplugs and plugs it back while the system was still working on the
original device for whatever reason.


On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:52:20 AM Jamie Strandboge <jamie at canonical.com>
wrote:

> On 01/30/2015 04:42 PM, Sergio Schvezov wrote:
> > On viernes 30 de enero de 2015 19h'31:44 ART, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> >> On 01/30/2015 04:18 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> = UX =
> >>> Relevant packaging yaml:
> >>> name: foo
> >>> version: 0.1
> >>> ...
> >>  ...
> >>
> >> Hmm, one thing that occurred to me is that while we want to give the
> > device
> >> access to a particular service/cli binary, I don't think users have a
> way to see
> >> what services/cli binaries a snap provides, do they? In other words:
> >>
> >> $ snappy install foo
> >> ...
> >> $ snappy add-hw foo.bar /dev/ttyS0
> >>
> >>
> >> How does the user know to specify 'foo.bar'? Does the new snappy cli UX
> cover
> >> this anywhere? If not, we'll can leave the original proposal, but
> prompt when
> >> the user specifies only the package name and when there is more than one
> >> service/cli binary to choose from (like in the above yaml example). Eg:
> >>
> >> $ snappy install foo
> >> ...
> >>
> >> $ snappy add-hw foo /dev/ttyS0             <=== only package name
> > specified
> >> Add access to '/dev/ttyS0' for which of the following:
> >> [1] foo.bar
> >> [2] foo.baz
> >> [3] all of the above
> >>
> >>> 1
> >> 'foo.bar' is now allowed to access /dev/ttyS0
> >
> > It should be foo_bar though, foo.bar would be akin to
> camlistore.sergiusens or
> > pastebinit.mvo (full package names).
>
> It's funny because I initially had '_' because it works better with the
> APP_ID
> concept and therefore the security policy. I picked '.' for consistency
> with the
> cli binaries, but forgot that those will use '/' in the future, so I think
> I
> picked the worst one.
>
> Choices:
> 1. foo.bar
> $ snappy add-hw foo.bar /dev/ttyS0
>
>
> 2. foo_bar
> $ snappy add-hw foo_bar /dev/ttyS0
>
>
> 3. foo/bar
> $ snappy add-hw foo/bar /dev/ttyS0
>
>
> I think I slightly prefer '3' visually, but would be happy with '2' for the
> reasons stated above. I don't like '1' because it is inconsistent with the
> future experience and is the most confusing.
>
>
> --
> Jamie Strandboge                 http://www.ubuntu.com/
>
> --
> snappy-devel mailing list
> snappy-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snappy-devel/attachments/20150131/92133c5c/attachment.html>