Please test my asciinema snap

[Michael Hudson-Doyle]

Hm, I was assuming that the PYTHONHOME leaking was due to things in the
snap specifically (is the source to the snap available?), but are they set
by snapd or snap-confine or something?

Cheers,
mwh

On 24 January 2017 at 00:09, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo at niemeyer.net> wrote:

>
> I'm wondering if maybe we should simply drop all snapcraft wrappers for
> classic snaps, specifically.
>
> As it is, the amount of magic that is actually intended for strict snaps
> seems to be hurting the behavior and understanding of classic snaps. I
> doubt adding even more magic will help.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Stuart Bishop <
> stuart.bishop at canonical.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 20 January 2017 at 19:59, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Any recommendations for dealing with those?
>>>
>>
>> Do exec* and friends need to be patched somehow, so that if processes are
>> spawned from a classic snap with targets outside snapd containment then the
>> environment is cleaned?
>>
>> I think this will affect all classic snaps that need to run subprocesses,
>> such as screen, vim, tmux... with other wrapper variables like the LD_*
>> settings leaking :-(
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop at canonical.com>
>>
>> --
>> Snapcraft mailing list
>> Snapcraft at lists.snapcraft.io
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm
>> an/listinfo/snapcraft
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
>
> --
> Snapcraft mailing list
> Snapcraft at lists.snapcraft.io
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snapcraft/attachments/20170125/3659017a/attachment.html>