feat: add a default snapcraft.yaml #351
Conversation
| confinement: strict | ||
| grade: devel | ||
| license: GPL-3.0 | ||
| compression: lzo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lengau I am not sure about this but I understand that the snap taking a bit more space to get a faster start-up time is an interesting trade off for us.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When I measured this for Charmcraft I determined it was pretty irrelevant for our own snaps, so I don't really care either way. (zstd was better for our use case, but alas...)
Users must implement the basic craft-application flow to successfuly build a snap with this configuration. Signed-off-by: Paul Mars <[email protected]>
upils
force-pushed
the
work/add-snap-conf
branch
from
17f920c to
a03f60d
Compare
| most important story about your snap. Keep it under 100 words though, | ||
| we live in tweetspace and your description wants to look good in the snap | ||
| store. | ||
| confinement: strict |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder whether we should just put classic here since all of our snaps currently are classic...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wondered too but then saw that our newest app is strict and was able to get away with some plugs. So maybe we should keep strict by default and have the action to set another confinement a conscious decision.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or does a snapcraft.yaml boilerplate that would work for our apps belong in https://github.com/canonical/craftcraft? It already has one, but is missing recent updates like the parts for libgit2, git, chisel, and the auto-completer.
I'm fine to have starbase's snapcraft.yaml be the absolute minimum to snap a UV project. I'd even be fine to drop the craft-cli autocompleter.
Users must implement the basic craft-application flow to successfully build a snap with this configuration.