than a regular package repository (archive.ubuntu.com, a PPA or a
third party repository).
I think some ground rules and some policies are necessary, but we must
avoid burocracy and give freedom to developer, so he/she can create
what he wants. So things like licensing should weaker enforced. The
idea is: think as an app store, not a package repository.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Ross Gammon <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 12:18 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 11:20:53AM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>> Am Freitag, den 09.02.2018, 09:37 +0000 schrieb Robie Basak:
>>>> Should this be a side effect subject to change of store policy
>>>> (which I think is outside the scope of the Ubuntu project?), or
>>>> should we define "no devmode" as an Ubuntu policy now?
>>> this is an already existing store policy ... if your snap was built
>>> with "confinement: devmode" you can not release it to stable, the store
>>> checks this and blocks. so the "only stable" policy on the ubuntu side
>>> should be enough.
>> Regardless of the question of governance of that policy, there's also
>> the fact that the spec calls for following a per-series channel, for
>> which I don't think a "no devmode" store policy is currently configured.
> Maybe not related to the policy as such, but one thing I have always
> wondered about, but not had the time to investigate (as I have only
> installed one snap deliberately on my system), is the release upgrade path.
> When I installed my "one and only" snap, I had to manually remove the
> old deb package manually.
> Will this be managed automagically if a flavour chooses a snap in their
> seed rather than the old deb package?
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Marcos H. Alano
Linux System Administrator
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel