RFC: Snappy shell

[Sergio Schvezov]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:56:18PM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2015, 11:17 +0100 schrieb Mark Shuttleworth:
> 
> > > Snappy shell needs not be required for all snappy based images and/or needs
> > > not be on port 22, it is rather an optional interface to snappy, much like
> > > webdm is an useful tool and default web user experience.
> > 
> > Here I disagree; if it's worth doing, it's worth doing universally.
> > 
> > Personally, I think:
> > 
> >  * it's worth doing by default on all snappy systems
> >  * the jump to a "normal Linux shell" needs to be crisp and obvious and easy
> >  * interaction with SSH needs to be straightforward and well thought through for cloud and device instances of snappy
> 
> i think flexibility is key here...
> 
> what about people that want to use snappy instances with (potentially
> proprietary and unconfigurable) tools that expect a proper shell on port
> 22 for operation ?

Out of curiosity, what are these traditional tools doing? There isn't
much you can do without frameworks installed.

I don't think we even want to expose systemd as part of the product, we
just have a services entry in the snaps and they have their in package
health checks that can be checked with a snappy primitive.

> it is ok to have a snappy shell on port 22 for the general use-case but
> we should have a switch for people deploying images to turn this off and
> be able to use snappy in an old fashioned context of "just having ssh"
> so these installs can still be operated in such environments.

snappy config (or gadget snap) would solve that.