Snapcraft, Snappy

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 12:27 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 10:34 +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > but see: reality
> 
> I only see an advantage for Ubuntu LTS releases. For regular Ubuntu
> releases, let alone rolling releases, such as Arch, this approach IMO is
> a step into the wrong direction.

say i'm an upstream dev who wants to provide his app to as many users as
possible with as little work for me as possible (i'm an upstream dev,
not a packager, why should i learn rpm or deb packaging) ... 

do you think i would provide a package for rolling distro $X where all
libraries i depend on are constantly changing ? i would have to
permanently monitor that one distro to make sure my app still works ...

instead i can have a package format that works on all distros (snapd is
in ubuntu, debian, arch and gentoo, it is available for fedora and
opensuse) and that i can define with a few lines in a single
snapcraft.yasml file. 
if i want to do a release i have to do exactly one upload and my app is
avaliable to all distros, be it LTS enterprise ones, or the latest
rolling release of foobar

what do you think i as upstream would pick here ?

OTOH ... i as a distro maintainer appreciate that i do not have to
actually care for enduser apps anymore and i can fully concentrate on
the base install and make that rock, the distro focus gets a lot smaller
which frees up a lot manpower for bug fixing and improvements.

(also note that there is a snappy distro image (where rootfs, kernel and
bootloader are snaps too), which is a completely rolling distro, if
ubuntu ever goes fully rolling, snappy will be the base i guess)

ciao
	oli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20160711/2565f13a/attachment.sig>