Package too old for cleanbuild

[Kyle Fazzari]

On 02/05/2017 11:46 PM, Michi Henning wrote:
>> Would it make sense to extend the snapcraft yaml to let the developer
>> specify where build-packages and stage-packages should be taken from?
>>
>> It would be nice to be able to run a "snapcraft cleanbuild" from zesty
>> while effectively using all the packages from xenial+overlay... :-)
> 
> That certainly would be nice, yes. It would also be awesome to be able to point apt inside the container at my  apt-cacher-ng cache. As is, every failed attempt to do a cleanbuild downloads ~150 MB and, on a 3 Mbit link, takes 10-15 minutes. For development and debugging, we really need something like this. As is, it’s unbelievably painful.

While I don't disagree with the suggestions here, if I may suggest a
workaround:

If you find yourself using cleanbuild a lot (it makes a new ephemeral
container, builds, then destroys the container), you might find some
workflow improvements by simply developing the snap in a container. You
can even bind-mount the source from the host, if you want. This is the
workflow I use personally. It allows for one to fully customize the apt
sources while also utilizing Snapcraft's built-in stage package cache*,
and it doesn't clutter the development environment on the host.

* In snapcraft 2.27, coming early next week

-- 
Kyle Fazzari (kyrofa)
Software Engineer
Canonical Ltd.
kyle at canonical.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snapcraft/attachments/20170209/e517041b/attachment.sig>