[arch-general] snapcraft
Hello All, Has anybody here experience with snapcraft (https://snapcraft.io). It seems to be an alternative installing packages on a (Arch) Linux system. That is an alternative, addition to pacman. Of course I don't want to compromise my Arch Linux system and therefore I am curious if anybody has experience with it ? ~Z
Hello there, I used snapcraft some in the past. I think it was for some fingerprint drivers that was only available there for some reason. It worked okay, but I did not like it ... R
Hi, You should check the wiki[1], the package manager for snaps is available from the AUR. Flatpak[2] is very similar and it's package manager is available from the repos. [1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Snap [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Flatpak On 19/03/2021 10:36, Zero via arch-general wrote:
Hello All,
Has anybody here experience with snapcraft (https://snapcraft.io).
It seems to be an alternative installing packages on a (Arch) Linux system.
That is an alternative, addition to pacman.
Of course I don't want to compromise my Arch Linux system and therefore I am curious if anybody has experience with it ?
~Z
Hi, is there anything in particular you want to install, that isn't provided by Arch Linux repositories, the AUR or that is provided but broken or takes way to long to build or that is to old, or to new? Or do you consider the snap approach as more secure or is there some other reason for you to consider using a snap or several snaps? A long time ago I tested it, by building my own snap on an Ubuntu install and never tried to continue doing it for my Arch install. Even while some of the older pitfalls are seemingly eliminated nowadays, I neither like snaps nor anything similar. Using snaps unlikely will break your Arch Linux install. The definition of "compromise" might still apply, if you consider the snap approach as less secure than "regular" packages, let alone that interaction between snaps (as well as similar alternatives) and the software installed by "regular" packages is not without pitfalls, if possible at all. Consider to mention what you try to achieve by using a snap or several snaps. Regards, Ralf
On 3/19/21 11:15 AM, Ralf Mardorf via arch-general wrote:
Hi,
is there anything in particular you want to install, that isn't provided by Arch Linux repositories, the AUR or that is provided but broken or takes way to long to build or that is to old, or to new? Or do you consider the snap approach as more secure or is there some other reason for you to consider using a snap or several snaps?
A long time ago I tested it, by building my own snap on an Ubuntu install and never tried to continue doing it for my Arch install. Even while some of the older pitfalls are seemingly eliminated nowadays, I neither like snaps nor anything similar.
Using snaps unlikely will break your Arch Linux install. The definition of "compromise" might still apply, if you consider the snap approach as less secure than "regular" packages, let alone that interaction between snaps (as well as similar alternatives) and the software installed by "regular" packages is not without pitfalls, if possible at all.
Consider to mention what you try to achieve by using a snap or several snaps.
Regards, Ralf
I am looking at the package Joplin to keep my notes in. Joplin is in the AUR and I assume I can build it but then I need to update it manually when new versions appear. The advantage of having it updated through Pacman or maybe Snapcraft is that it is updated automagically. As Youri pointed out Flatpak is an alternative but that will run applications in a sandbox. Joplin is supported by Snapcraft and Flatpak so therefore I am looking at them. Regards, Harm-Jan
Hi,
Joplin is supported by Snapcraft and Flatpak so therefore I am looking at them.
if you don't want to build it yourself, Joplin is also as appimage in the AUR. Regards Bjoern
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:25:17 +0100, Zero via arch-general wrote:
I am looking at the package Joplin to keep my notes in.
Joplin is in the AUR and I assume I can build it but then I need to update it manually when new versions appear.
Consider to use an AUR helper, or to use a website-changes-monitoring-tool and run your own non-AUR helper script to automagically build the package.
As Youri pointed out Flatpak is an alternative but that will run applications in a sandbox.
Snaps are also using kind of a container approach. Whatever the definition of "sandbox" or "container" and Co is, snaps and flatpacks follow a similar approach, coming with more or less equal pitfalls.
On 3/19/21, Zero via arch-general
I am looking at the package Joplin to keep my notes in.
Just in case, Joplin is available in Flatpak through Flathub: https://flathub.org/apps/details/net.cozic.joplin_desktop If I recall correctly the main difference between Flatpak and Snapcraft was that Snapcraft has closed-source server-side controlled by Canonical, meanwhile Flatpak is fully open (flathub.org is just the main/official repo) and its containment was considered more secure, but I could be wrong. I've been using Flatpak for some time now as a way to easily install some software (Skype, for instance) in a more secure/controlled fashion for some clients who needed it. It works fine, just takes a lot of space because it has to download everything to work independently... Simple but not efficient. Hopes this helps you in some way. Best regards!
On 19/03/2021 10:25, Zero via arch-general wrote:
I am looking at the package Joplin to keep my notes in.
Joplin is in the AUR and I assume I can build it but then I need to update it manually when new versions appear.
The advantage of having it updated through Pacman or maybe Snapcraft is that it is updated automagically.
Joplin (along with many AUR packages) are available in the Chaotic-AUR unofficial user repository: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_user_repositories#chaotic-au... Though obviously, you have to trust the maintainers more than Canonical. ;) J
Hello,
Checkout KDE's Discover store, it installs directly from Arch repos and
works great. Plus it includes Joplin.
Regards
El vie, 19 de mar de 2021 a las 10:36, Zero via arch-general
Hello All,
Has anybody here experience with snapcraft (https://snapcraft.io https://snapcraft.io/).
It seems to be an alternative installing packages on a (Arch) Linux system.
That is an alternative, addition to pacman.
Of course I don't want to compromise my Arch Linux system and therefore I am curious if anybody has experience with it ?
~Z
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 09:36, Zero via arch-general
Has anybody here experience with snapcraft (https://snapcraft.io).
It seems to be an alternative installing packages on a (Arch) Linux system.
That is an alternative, addition to pacman.
Of course I don't want to compromise my Arch Linux system and therefore I am curious if anybody has experience with it ?
My main distro is Arch, but I also have Ubuntu installed in other partitions (for booting, building Lineage OS, for tests, etc). In one of my tests I installed chromium on Ubuntu, as it is available only in a snap. The problems I found is that the chromium snap on Ubuntu compared with chromium on Arch is very slow to start and uses tons of RAM and disk space. Moreover if you do lsblk -f you will find complicated directory structures. I like to keep things not too complicated. If you search Reddit you will find many threads about the pros and cons of snaps and comparison with other solutions. After my tests I uninstalled snaps and snapd!
participants (9)
-
Bjoern Franke
-
darkstar root
-
Jonathon Fernyhough
-
Piscium
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Rasmus Liland
-
riveravaldez
-
Youri Wijnands
-
Zero