As the upstream is clearly not interested maintaining the snap and multiple attempt existed[1] [2], maybe it’s a great target for the @snapcrafters to adopt this package?
@joedborg Thanks for your effort, but however it seems that @evan’s implementation [1] is more complete than your’s, we should probably work on his implementation instead.
If @joedborg is happy to maintain this snap, that’s great. I don’t see a need to absorb everything into snapcrafters. As mentioned in another thread, snapcrafters shouldn’t be seen as a dumping ground for all snaps. Ideally we’d upstream everything in snapcrafters, but for whatever reason some can’t or won’t be upstreamed. But if we have active community members (including Canonical employees such as @joedborg) who are willing to maintain a snap, that’s awesome.
The major benefit I see from including this package to snapcrafters is that we can set up automatic re-publishing as this package updates frequently and an outdated package will cause frustration to its users.
If this problem is dealt properly I’d happy to let it be.
@gunnarhj Thanks for testing this and taking the time for providing feedback.
@Lin-Buo-Ren I had not found the snap by @evan (that’s my bad). If you know where his source code lives, I’ll make sure to get in touch with him to see if he wants to collaborate. I’ll add that plug now and push a new edge, thanks for the heads up.
@popey, I’m currently pulling their updates into a fork (which has the snapcraft.yaml) with backstroke.co and then I’ll rely on the build.snapcraft.io to build and push the updates. Does this sound sane?