Base runtime freedesktop-sdk-runtime-19-08

This won’t be in 2.42, but is now scheduled to start in November. Sorry for the delay on this, but once the work is completed, this will make everything straightforward in terms of reviews, processes and new base snaps.

@jdstrand, any news about it? Will there be some progress any time soon?

Yes, the work is scheduled, roadmapped for this cycle and assigned to me. I plan to start on it most likely next week. It will not make it for 2.43, but should for 2.44.

1 Like

@jdstrand any more updates on this?

I know this keeps get pushed back but it is literally at the top of the queue now and I hope to start work on it this week.

This feature also requires changes to the review-tools to expand the checks for base snaps. I did that a little while ago and this is in production in the store.

I’ve just now submitted which, when it lands, will (finally) allow freedesktop-sdk-runtime to be usable by other snaps in the store.

cc @kenvandine


FYI, this was just now merged and will be in 2.45. The changes should be in tonight’s edge snap. Please test freedesktop-sdk-runtime-19-08 with core/snapd from edge and let us know if you have any issues.


@jdstrand, I have just tested quickly and the new apparmor profile with edge snapd seems to fix our issues.

Through I will have to do some cleanup and little fixes before I submit it to the store. But now the ball is on my side.

Thank you!

FYI, all the prerequisites are in snapd 2.45 now and I updated Process for reviewing base snaps with some additional details so this request can move forward whenever you’ve confirmed that your snap is ready.

I have reuploaded a newer version. It is freedesktop-sdk-runtime-2008. I also uploaded freedesktop-sdk-sdk-2008. This is the full SDK which is needed for development applications (e.g. GNOME Builder). Those are beta uploads (they are in edge track). We are going to have the first release of 20.08 in few weeks.

  • Base snaps shall not use tracks"

Does that mean I can only upload stable?

And I will upload other architectures when x86_64 has been vetted.

Ping @jdstrand ,

Will there be a new review?

I missed this question when it appeared. No, you can upload to latest/edge latest/beta etc.

But snapd will always only auto install the base from latest/stable. For testing you can pre-install the base alone with snap install --channel and then install snaps that require it for testing. They will use the base as installed from the risk you chose.

Yikes, sorry for the delay on this! Since this is our first community base snap of this nature, I’m going to follow Process for reviewing base snaps rigorously so other @reviewers can more easily participate.

The snap’s name is freedesktop-sdk-runtime-2008 which is compliant with the ABI naming convention we are looking for. The snap does not currently use assumes: [ snapd2.45 ].

  • @valentind - can you update the snap to use assumes?

@valentind - there is a strong preference for base snaps to be maintained by a community or project. You are currently listed as the publisher with no collaborators. Would it make sense to create a ‘’ username, adding yourself and others as collaborators? If you are amenable to this, perhaps @popey or @roadmr can assist with the process?

The base contains all the necessary empty directories for snap-confine (this is verified by the review-tools).

All the files in the base are root/root with no unusual permissions (this is verified by the review-tools).

I used unsquashfs -lls /path/to/snap |grep -E 'squashfs-root/(dev|etc|home|lib/modules|lib/firmware|mnt|media|run|proc|root|snap|var/snap|sys|usr/lib/firmware|usr/lib/modules|usr/lib/snapd|usr/src|var/lib/dhcp|var/lib/extrausers|var/lib/jenkins|var/lib/snapd|var/log|var/tmp)' and found the following:

  • there are files in squashfs-root/etc
  • there are files in squashfs-root/proc

@valentind - can you use stage in your snapcraft.yaml or otherwise remove the files in these directories (but not the directories themselves)?

I then noticed it is shipping:

  • squashfs-root/app
  • squashfs-root/snap

These are not going to be available to the snap at runtime because the default base template policy does not allow them.

@valentind - can you remove these?

@valentind - can you comment on each of these:

  • Will you not request using tracks for this snap?
  • Do you commit to not intentionally break consumers of this snap? (Eg, by removing files, changing ABIs, etc)
  • Do you commit to be responsive to bugs and regressions caused by updates to the snap?

Assuming the that @valentind answers in the affirmative to these questions, cleans up the snap in the requested ways and ideally creates a community/project username with collaborators, I think this snap can undergo publisher vetting.


@valentind - as an aside, the snap is shipping quite a lot, which is fine, but I want to mention that once approved and you’re on your way, future uploads will be automatically checked to verify if files are dropped from the snap or ABIs are dropped and if that happens, the revision will fail review. For the smoothest experience going forward, I highly suggest that you prune the snap to just what you want. It is fine if you choose to only make the minimal changes I requested, but I wanted you to know how the process works for base snaps.

Thanks for your work on this!

1 Like

Just want to step in and say: keep going, @valentind ! I know it’s been more than a year since this process started, but it’ll be very beneficial for the community. Looking forward to this!

Thanks also to Snap team, for directing Valentin through this.

1 Like

@valentind thanks a lot for you patience. Any chance you could review suggestions and questions made by @jdstrand?

Sorry, I was busy. I will go through the review and fix the issues. I will be back with a revised version.

We check ABI is stable (both forward and backward, no symbol added nor removed). However I cannot for sure know if files are removed. We only verify that libraries are not removed (and also not added). But for other type of files, they could be added. Could I have detailed on what the check is so I can add more rules within the Freedesktop SDK to be compatible with it?

Glad to hear about your ABI checks. That’s awesome and perfect for a base snap publisher! :slight_smile:

Adding files is not a problem (even libraries, but as the publisher you can of course be more strict), but removing is. Note that removing files doesn’t mean the revision can’t be manually approved; a reviewer then needs to examine the situation and reach out to discuss if it is ok.

There are two paths here: either remove the files you don’t expect people to use so there are fewer chances of dropping things going forward (where my suggestions were coming from) or not generally worry about it with the understanding that you might occasionally have a review hiccup that requires manual review.