Let me reassure you that we are committed to maintaining the G-S Snap
plugin and snapd-glib. We do want to ensure it’s available for any user of
GNOME Software that wishes to use Snaps, regardless of which distro they
are using. The Snap plugin is enabled in all Ubuntu releases so it should
work well, but if there are unit test failures please let us know.
We’re happy for the Snap plugin to be built in a separate source package
for Fedora if that’s necessary and we’re obviously keen to see snapd-glib
up to date in Fedora. The dependencies are fairly light so it should be
quick to update but let us know if there is anything we can do to make this
easier. Note that snapd-glib updates frequently to enable new features in
snapd but retains backwards compatibility.
It’s still very early days for our ideas for
and we’ll post more detailed
information in the next few weeks.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 5:15 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:34 AM Richard Hughes
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 14:52, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > My understanding of the situation was that Canonical is working on a
> > separate experience tailored for Ubuntu because they have extra needs,
> > but all of it was built on GNOME Software in the first place.
> No, it's also a new codebase: https://github.com/ubuntu/snap-store
> it's confusing as the name "Snap Store" is also the name of the
> debadged-gnome-software version too.
> > My opinion on this is that because we don't ship the plugin or snapd
> > by default on any variant of Fedora, we don't really run counter to
> > the rules.
> So in the same way, we could have a checkbox for "Flathub support" in
> the gnome-software addons page? I don't think that would wash with
> legal as we would be "facilitating" access to patent encumbered
> software. I don't think the "by default" arguments protects us like
> > Would it make sense for Zygmunt and Maciek (CC'd to this email) to be
> > added as CC contacts on Bugzilla, so they can address snap plugin
> > issues when they arise?
> No, as they're not the ones committing fixes to gnome-software.
> Watching a bugzilla ticket doesn't equate to being responsible for
> bugs. The snap plugin self tests are failing in CI, and we can't even
> update to a newer gnome-software in rawhide as the version of
> snapd-glib is too old. Usually when that happens either me or Kalev
> have to hunt down the new tarballs, add any new BRs, scratch build,
> build, submit as an update etc and that's just not fair.
For what it's worth, Robert Ancell also has an RHBZ account and can be
added as a CC if needed. That said, Maciek and Zygmunt are the folks
at Canonical generally responsible for ensuring the non-Ubuntu
experience is as good as it can be. They are the people I work with
for Fedora considerations upstream most of the time. They are both
knowledgeable and capable of working on that side if needed.
I was unaware you've been needing new releases of snapd-glib more
frequently. I've mainly been updating them whenever I get a bug report
or when I notice a new version is available. If you need me to be more
aggressive on updating snapd-glib, I could have done that.
> > I'm just generally confused about this, and somewhat blindsided...
> I was informed of the Canonical decision a few weeks ago, and it too
> took me by surprise. I guess winning the war comes at a cost, and this
> camel has a broken back.
> > I wish someone had looped *me* into these conversations, as one of the
> > snap support maintainers in Fedora, I'm relying on these things to
> > provide a good experience for Fedora users of snaps...
> I was asked not to distribute details about the conversations until
> they had made a public statement, which still hasn't been done. I'm
> not comfortable with the situation at all either but we have to do
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!