Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

Hi Sergio,

The question asked was actually how to get snapcraft to include
dependencies *inside the snap* so that it works as it does with strict
snaps, bundling the dependencies.

Your response was about system libraries rather than bundled
in-snap libraries, I believe.

This should definitely work fine, right?



On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Sergio Schvezov <
sergio.schvezov at canonical.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:17:27 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> > On 17/01/17 22:22, Sergio Schvezov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Is that a work in progress constraint, or is it the intended long term
> > behaviour?  (I'll try it out shortly in any case.)
> >
> > I ask because currently, if a package is explicitly stated as a build
> > dependency, then with `strict` confinement it's automatically
> > included in the
> > final snap where necessary.  What makes `classic` confinement unable to
> > automatically handle the inclusion of build dependencies in the same way?
>
> The logic is still run, but the resulting binary in classic uses rpath and
> no dynamic loading so there is no resolution to a on-system library we can
> pick up. I guess we can do some magic, but it feels it might be either
> fragile or make the build process a lot slower. We will need to look into
> it, but not short term.
>
> --
> Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device
>
> --
> Snapcraft mailing list
> Snapcraft at lists.snapcraft.io
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
>



-- 

gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snapcraft/attachments/20170118/9feb2a6a/attachment.html>