| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 2 |
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Gentoo support for Snap is roughly as "official" as RedHat/Fedora support. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> See also |
| 7 |
> https://www.happyassassin.net/2016/06/16/on-snappy-and-flatpak-business-as-usual-in-the-canonical-propaganda-department/ |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Quoting from there: |
| 10 |
> "The sum total of communication between Canonical and Fedora before the |
| 11 |
> release of this press release was that they mailed us asking about the process |
| 12 |
> of packaging snappy for Fedora, and we told them about the main packaging |
| 13 |
> process and COPR. They certainly did not in any way inform Fedora that they |
| 14 |
> were going to send out a press release strongly implying that Fedora, along |
| 15 |
> with every other distro in the world, was now a happy traveler on the Snappy |
| 16 |
> bandwagon." |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
By a Gnome dev on fedora-devel@: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
<begin> |
| 21 |
Just for the record... the Softpedia article doesn't actually say |
| 22 |
"Canonical state that they have been working with Fedora developers to |
| 23 |
make this the universal packaging format." It does say they've been |
| 24 |
"working for some time with developers from various major GNU/Linux |
| 25 |
distributions" and that "the Snap package format is working natively on |
| 26 |
popular GNU/Linux operating systems like [...] Fedora [...]," so it's |
| 27 |
clear why there was confusion, but it doesn't say that they've been |
| 28 |
working with Fedora specifically. |
| 29 |
</end> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
There's one thing that's not addressed in the marketing and that's |
| 32 |
Snap's are secure on Ubuntu because it uses AppArmor - and I've read a |
| 33 |
post that said that they've patched AppArmor specifically to contain |
| 34 |
Snaps better but I can't find that reference. |
Archives