[arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux
Hi, after taking a brief look into building a yaml and following Ubuntu's Snapcraft mailing list, I don't have a good opinion of it. It at least is nothing I would recommend for usage with Arch Linux on i686 and x86_64 servers and desktop computers, not only because it requires an Ubuntu kernel patch [1], but because it IMO is completely against the rolling release approach and beyond that IMO broken in many ways. The first sentence on http://snapcraft.io/ is "Package any app for every Linux desktop, server, cloud or device, and deliver updates directly" and the first logo beside the Ubuntu logo is Arch Linux. My opinion is, that it would be better, if the Arch Linux logo would be removed from http://snapcraft.io/ , because I guess it gets across a wrong message. Regards, Ralf [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Snapd#Installation Disclaimer I only want to inform about it, in case Arch Linux developers aren't aware of it. I will not argue against, if Arch developers don't care and/or disagree with my opinion. IOW I will not discuss it, the intention is only to inform of it. ;) -- Death of ROXTerm https://sourceforge.net/p/roxterm/discussion/422638/thread/60da6975/
On 24/11/16 11:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
It at least is nothing I would recommend for usage with Arch Linux on i686 and x86_64 servers and desktop computers, not only because it requires an Ubuntu kernel patch [1], but because it IMO is completely against the rolling release approach and beyond that IMO broken in many ways. Hear hear! I absolutely agree and I'm glad someone said it. Just my two cents..
--dan
On 11/24/16 at 12:18pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
My opinion is, that it would be better, if the Arch Linux logo would be removed from http://snapcraft.io/ , because I guess it gets across a wrong message.
You are aware that we package snapd in [community]? [1] I'm not sure why ask for the logo to be removed from the website, technically we support the snapd package. [1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/snapd/ -- Jelle van der Waa
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:22:49 +0100, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 11/24/16 at 12:18pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
My opinion is, that it would be better, if the Arch Linux logo would be removed from http://snapcraft.io/ , because I guess it gets across a wrong message.
You are aware that we package snapd in [community]? [1]
I'm not sure why ask for the logo to be removed from the website, technically we support the snapd package.
[1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/snapd/
Yes, I've tested building a snap and also installed snapd. Developers using Arch Linux could be interested to provide their software by snaps and might want to have a complete environment. There's nothing wrong with providing it, for those who have the opinion, that it is a good approach. However, the message of Ubuntu's http://snapcraft.io/ is ambiguous. To install software on Arch Linux installs, even AUR helpers aren't official supported, https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_helpers , so I assume that snaps are also not supported. Again, if others don't share my opinion it's ok, no need to discuss it, now I only try to clarify my point of view. Regards, Ralf
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 13:42:26 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:22:49 +0100, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 11/24/16 at 12:18pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
My opinion is, that it would be better, if the Arch Linux logo would be removed from http://snapcraft.io/ , because I guess it gets across a wrong message.
You are aware that we package snapd in [community]? [1]
I'm not sure why ask for the logo to be removed from the website, technically we support the snapd package.
[1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/snapd/
Yes, I've tested building a snap and also installed snapd. Developers using Arch Linux could be interested to provide their software by snaps and might want to have a complete environment. There's nothing wrong with providing it, for those who have the opinion, that it is a good approach. However, the message of Ubuntu's http://snapcraft.io/ is ambiguous. To install software on Arch Linux installs, even AUR helpers aren't official supported, https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_helpers , so I assume that snaps are also not supported.
Snaps (and other applications like pip, gems, cabal, docker, ...) do have capabilities to install additional data to the system. But they do not interfere with pacman's package/software infrastructure like AUR helpers and pacman wrappers do. I don't like the idea behind this "universal package manager" approach either, but from a strictly technical point of view, it is no different than any of aforementioned tools. What they install may not be supported by the community/maintainers, but the tools themselves are. My 5 pedantic cents.
Again, if others don't share my opinion it's ok, no need to discuss it, now I only try to clarify my point of view.
Regards, Ralf
Best, Tinu
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:08:48 +0100, Tinu Weber wrote:
Snaps (and other applications like pip, gems, cabal, docker, ...) do have capabilities to install additional data to the system. But they do not interfere with pacman's package/software infrastructure like AUR helpers and pacman wrappers do.
I don't like the idea behind this "universal package manager" approach either, but from a strictly technical point of view, it is no different than any of aforementioned tools. What they install may not be supported by the community/maintainers, but the tools themselves are.
An excerpt from https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-October/287739.html ogra@ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200 Subject: Re: Question about Snaps To: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com From: ogra@ubuntu.com [snip] snaps are the future in the ubuntu ecosystem (and most likely also in many others, when looking at the consortium of different distros and projects that decide on their direction now in the technical oversight board [1]) [snip] [1] appstream, Arch, debian, elementary, KDE, Ubuntu, VLC, Fedora ^^^^ ^^^^
ogra@ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200 Subject: Re: Question about Snaps To: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com From: ogra@ubuntu.com
[snip]
snaps are the future in the ubuntu ecosystem (and most likely also in many others, when looking at the consortium of different distros and projects that decide on their direction now in the technical oversight board [1]) [snip]
[1] appstream, Arch, debian, elementary, KDE, Ubuntu, VLC, Fedora ^^^^ ^^^^
Trying to take over the world, eh? ;) -- GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047 7DB3 DDED 5FC4 47B2 26C7 E577 EF96 7808
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 14:40:14 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
An excerpt from https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-October/287739.html
ogra@ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200 Subject: Re: Question about Snaps To: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com From: ogra@ubuntu.com
[snip]
snaps are the future in the ubuntu ecosystem (and most likely also in many others, when looking at the consortium of different distros and projects that decide on their direction now in the technical oversight board [1]) [snip]
[1] appstream, Arch, debian, elementary, KDE, Ubuntu, VLC, Fedora ^^^^ ^^^^
So there is somebody out there claiming that Arch Linux, Debian, Fedora and whoever else will replace their own packaging ecosystem by something like that, and the sensation media is picking it up and spreading it all over the intertubes. So what? All we can do is: * Remove snapd from the repos and piss off everyone. As stated above, there are no technically valid reasons to do so; AL supports it, and it's fine. * Make a "public statement" (who? where?) that AL does not intend to move to snaps in the future. If one thing is dead-sure, it's that Debian will not replace their sophisticated software packaging infrastructure by something like this, but I couldn't find anything resembling a statement by the Debian folks on the web, so I don't think the situation is that severe. Again, this would just be pissing off people, nothing more. * Let them have their little moment of euphoria and see where it goes. Most likely nowhere. The majority of upstream devs will keep on writing software the way they've done so far and let the distribution maintainers do the rest (because that's easier for everyone). As you may have noticed, I vote for option 3 :-) Best, Tinu
On 11/24/2016 08:40 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
An excerpt from https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-October/287739.html
ogra@ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200 Subject: Re: Question about Snaps To: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com From: ogra@ubuntu.com
[snip]
snaps are the future in the ubuntu ecosystem (and most likely also in many others, when looking at the consortium of different distros and projects that decide on their direction now in the technical oversight board [1]) [snip]
[1] appstream, Arch, debian, elementary, KDE, Ubuntu, VLC, Fedora ^^^^ ^^^^
What is your point? That Ubuntu lies for propaganda reasons? They have no authority to speak for any project other than Ubuntu itself, so statements like that are fundamentally ridiculous, and no one with a brain believes them on faith anyway. The fact that Ubuntu is, um, overexcited about the fact that other distros try to make sure the software runs as intended on their distro, is a well-known fact, and everyone here has long since been disabused of the notion that packaging snapd means it is recommended over pacman as a software installation method. It seems to me though, that you have an irrational hatred of Snaps. It is one thing to not want to use them yourself, especially from an Arch perspective. It is another thing entirely to pick a fight on *their* mailing list, about whether *their* users (who have different priorities from Arch users) are willing to use Snaps. They most likely wouldn't be Ubuntu users if they cared about the downsides of Snaps, but if they did care, then I am sure they also know how to avoid Snaps altogether. And what do you want from us anyway? They are legally and ethically allowed to use the Arch Linux logo to indicate their software works on Arch Linux, and the personal soapbox of Snapcraft/Ubuntu devs is not under the control of the Arch devs, so we can't force them to stop exaggerating either. -- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:36:23 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
It is another thing entirely to pick a fight on *their* mailing list, about whether *their* users (who have different priorities from Arch users) are willing to use Snaps.
I didn't use their mailing list, to spread hate about snaps. It's also my mailing list, since I'm a subscriber of this and several Ubuntu falvour mailing lists to help Linux novices and btw. my help usually is much appreciated on those mailing lists.
And what do you want from us anyway?
I only want to inform those who might not have noticed it. Since I'm not an Arch Linux developer, I can't ask Ubuntu to remove the logo. I even don't ask the Arch developers, to ask Ubuntu to remove it, again, I only want to inform. It's entirely on the "owners" of Arch Linux to decide, if they care about it or not. I don't fight for it. Regards, Ralf
On 11/24/2016 09:50 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I didn't use their mailing list, to spread hate about snaps. It's also my mailing list, since I'm a subscriber of this and several Ubuntu falvour mailing lists to help Linux novices and btw. my help usually is much appreciated on those mailing lists.
You are using Ubuntu resources to spread an anti-snapcraft message along the lines of Arch-style philosophy. I would appreciate if you could respect the Ubuntu motto and their general mission statement of targeting "human beings" rather than "Linux gurus", and extend that respect all the way to their desire to use Snaps as a means to simplify life for their target users. Quoted from your posts there:
A Mac user isn't a Linux user. We should expect another level of self-responsibility Linux users, even from those using Ubuntu, let alone the users of more expert orientated distros.
Um, no. Ubuntu is allowed to expect whatever level of self-responsibility they want, from their target users. Users who evaluate their self-responsibility as incompatible with the goals of Ubuntu are free, in turn, to choose another distro. I suggest debian, as it is more or less the same thing as Ubuntu just with more responsibility. ;) And you proceeded to argue the merits of switching to a rolling release distro! What is your point there, exactly? People use Ubuntu *because* it is not rolling release...
I only want to inform those who might not have noticed it. Since I'm not an Arch Linux developer, I can't ask Ubuntu to remove the logo. I even don't ask the Arch developers, to ask Ubuntu to remove it, again, I only want to inform. It's entirely on the "owners" of Arch Linux to decide, if they care about it or not. I don't fight for it.
The Arch devs already know, and expressed their complete unconcern in every aspect of that website and the community surrounding it. We discovered that the last time someone spawned a mega-thread in this mailing list. I'm sure you saw it... -- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:13:30 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
You are using Ubuntu resources to spread an anti-snapcraft message along the lines of Arch-style philosophy.
That is off-top for this list and apart from this untrue. I'm a part of the Ubuntu community. For your very information, Ubuntu for servers and desktop computers is based upon apt, not snaps. Some issues can't be solved by using snaps, this is the wrong approach for Ubuntu, too. However, this is OT for this list. Please don't claim that I misused their list, this is untrue. I corrected wrong statements in this and several other threads. Wrong statements that usually are completely unrelated to Arch Linux.
The Arch devs already know, and expressed their complete unconcern in every aspect of that website and the community surrounding it. We discovered that the last time someone spawned a mega-thread in this mailing list. I'm sure you saw it...
IIRC there wasn't a thread about snappy, but about a similar approach. However, I didn't notice concerns about misleading usage of the Arch logo on the Ubuntu website, but I might not have read the complete thread. Regards, Ralf
On 11/24/2016 10:33 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:13:30 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
You are using Ubuntu resources to spread an anti-snapcraft message along the lines of Arch-style philosophy.
That is off-top for this list and apart from this untrue.
I'm a part of the Ubuntu community.
I'm very happy for you, but what is your point? Your membership in their community does not get to define the overall mission statement of their community. If you think otherwise, that is sheer arrogance.
For your very information, Ubuntu for servers and desktop computers is based upon apt, not snaps.
And that is apparently changing, according to Ubuntu devs. The argument that "this is how it works right now", is not a convincing argument.
Some issues can't be solved by using snaps, this is the wrong approach for Ubuntu, too.
The only thing that matters for them is, what unsolvable issues are there, *that Ubuntu cares about* ? Your main issue seems to be that Linux users should care more than Mac users about their OS internals. Given that the target Ubuntu userbase is people who would otherwise be using Macbooks, I really don't see where you are coming from at all. Much like I don't see where they are coming from, thinking that other distros want, like Ubuntu, to appeal to Mac users via snapcraft.
However, this is OT for this list. Please don't claim that I misused their list, this is untrue. I corrected wrong statements in this and several other threads. Wrong statements that usually are completely unrelated to Arch Linux.
It is very on topic for this list. Or at least, this thread. I am exploring the reasons why you spammed this list by starting this thread. Also, I am correcting the wrong statements you made about the supposed "wrong statements" you were correcting. Only about half of them were wrong. You misused their list. You are currently misusing this list. Even where I agree with you, I disagree with the way you go about saying it. So please, just stop. -- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:10:49 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
For your very information, Ubuntu for servers and desktop computers is based upon apt, not snaps.
And that is apparently changing, according to Ubuntu devs.
If you don't know Ubuntu, why do you want to talk about it on an Arch mailing list? Are you trolling? Apt is under development at the moment. It will replace apt-get, resp. it already replaced it as the recommended Ubuntu package management tool, for new releases, but not all still supported releases yet. Apt isn't an old tool, it's new. You don't know what you are talking about.
You are currently misusing this list.
I just pointed out, that some people got a wrong impression about Arch Linux as part of a consortium, that should be in favour of snappy. I wasn't aware that Arch developers are already aware about it and if they don't care about it, I won't care about it anymore, too. Everything is fine. Regards, Ralf
On 11/24/2016 03:53 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:10:49 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
For your very information, Ubuntu for servers and desktop computers is based upon apt, not snaps.
And that is apparently changing, according to Ubuntu devs.
If you don't know Ubuntu, why do you want to talk about it on an Arch mailing list? Are you trolling?
Apt is under development at the moment. It will replace apt-get, resp. it already replaced it as the recommended Ubuntu package management tool, for new releases, but not all still supported releases yet. Apt isn't an old tool, it's new. You don't know what you are talking about.
I cannot help but feel you are drastically misunderstanding what I said. I *thought* I said that according to Ubuntu devs, Snaps are apparently the way of the future and will in the not-so-distant future be the method for installing everything but the base system, or at least most everything else. What does that have to do with when or how apt (or any of the other bazillion *.deb frontends) is developed, or how long (or short) it remains the method for people installing Firefox, Libreoffice, and other significant end-user software (leaving aside the question of linux/systemd/bash/coreutils/blahblahblah)?
You are currently misusing this list.
I just pointed out, that some people got a wrong impression about Arch Linux as part of a consortium, that should be in favour of snappy.
FWIW, I don't really care what impression non-Arch users get, and I suspect I may not be alone in that...
I wasn't aware that Arch developers are already aware about it and if they don't care about it, I won't care about it anymore, too.
Everything is fine.
... but thanks. -- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:46:52 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
I said that according to Ubuntu devs, Snaps are apparently the way of the future
Do you have any evidence for this claim, apart of the claim of somebody in favour of snappy, who isn't informed about the current development of apt and who also claims that Debian and Arch Linux will migrate to snappy, too?
On 11/24/2016 04:59 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:46:52 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
I said that according to Ubuntu devs, Snaps are apparently the way of the future
Do you have any evidence for this claim, apart of the claim of somebody in favour of snappy, who isn't informed about the current development of apt and who also claims that Debian and Arch Linux will migrate to snappy, too?
I can see where this is going. Once, I can respond to you to reassure you that I am not a troll (for mentioning the word "Ubuntu", or something -- never mind it is your Ubuntu-centric thread)... twice is getting a bit ridiculous already. If you cannot figure out how your own references indicate that the person you specifically called out as an official Ubuntu person (email address and all), who is "deeply involved in working on snappy", and probably knows a whole lot about his own distro even if he is clueless about Arch, is worth at least mentioning as a potential proof to anything... then you are further gone than I thought. I am also dreadfully confused as to who you are accusing of being clueless about apt. I thought that was supposed to be me, but now it seems you are accusing Mr. Grawert. Which in the context of this discussion is an accusation directly out of left field. Which is so this thread, really. Implications, accusations, proclamations, etc. out of left field, with no one really sure of why we are supposed to care or what the point is supposed to be. This whole thread was a waste of time, and getting worse. Please don't respond to this email, as I can already predict any reply of yours would be a waste of time to read, and therefore I shan't bother. -- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:07:17 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
If you cannot figure out how your own references indicate that the person you specifically called out as an official Ubuntu person (email address and all), who is "deeply involved in working on snappy", and probably knows a whole lot about his own distro even if he is clueless about Arch, is worth at least mentioning as a potential proof to anything... then you are further gone than I thought.
I proved you wrong and you are not willing to accept that you are wrong, that's funny.
Mr. Grawert
"wow, working on snappy all the time obviously made me miss that new apt feature :) you are actually correct, with the switch from apt-get to apt this is indeed possible, sorry for the noise..." - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-November/288224.html I don't know why _you_ Eli, spread wrong claims and ask me to not reply to your wrong claims. Consider not to spread FUD. There even is something bad with Mr. Grawert. It's very simple, some developers are in favour of snappy others plan to stay with normal repositories, shared libraries, the non-container approach. I several times explained that I corrected wrong statements of this developer as well as yours. But this wasn't the topic. The topic was just to point out, that the Arch Logo on the Ubuntu website could lead to misunderstandings. This thread actually was finished several mails ago, it's just that you blamed me with wrong off-topic assumptions. Please stopp! Regards, Ralf
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 01:00:49 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
There even is something bad with Mr. Grawert. It's very simple, some is _not_
pardon a typo, I missed the "not" Serious Eli, it's just you who is spreading nonsense at the moment. By reading something, unrelated to this Arch thread, out of context of an Ubuntu thread.
developers are in favour of snappy others plan to stay with normal repositories, shared libraries, the non-container approach. I several times explained that I corrected wrong statements
On 24 Nov 2016, at 12:18, Ralf Mardorf <silver.bullet@zoho.com> wrote:
The first sentence on http://snapcraft.io/ is
"Package any app for every Linux desktop, server, cloud or device, and deliver updates directly"
and the first logo beside the Ubuntu logo is Arch Linux.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out. I don't want to judge if there's need for a change, but I want to mention that this might cause a false impression of arch linux to users not aware of the disadvantages of secondary software sources / "snaps". But I agree to your opinion, as long as others don't see the need for a change, I don't do either.
participants (7)
-
Bennett Piater
-
Dan Haworth
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Lukas Rose
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Tinu Weber