Classic confinement for bootstack-ops snap

My build box is 2.33.1, as is the client I’m testing with, and I do see the interface present everywhere. However, it’s when I upload to the store that I get errors, building is OK as is making the connection on install.

This is a bug in the review-tools. I’ll fix that. Please continue to upload to the store in strict and request a manual review and I’ll review the snap as needed until the fix is in production.

This is updated in master and on its way to production.

I’ve had no success at getting the snap confined - mostly because I need access to a Juju binary even if we have the interface to get the client config, and short of including that binary via a deb inside the snap, or a complete compile of the juju client, I’m stuck. This is effectively along the same lines as the Juju plugins that stub mentions. Any chance of a reconsideration for classic confinement?

I’ll add that this repo is a slowly growing list of ops tools that will use the Maas CLI, plus Juju client.

@niemeyer - what are your thoughts on @xavpaice’s most recent comments?

Update: I’ve been asked to remove that particular snap anyway, we’re working on removing the tooling and putting it where it belongs in the product itself, making a separate snap obsolete. I’ve marked the snap private now, and would like some help if possible to delete it from the store.

@xavpaice The store team can help with that, but can you please open an independent thread for this? This issue has been marked solved, which probably will detour eyes away from it.

@xavpaice hi! Snaps aren’t usually deleted; if you want it to be completely unfindable/uninstallable, while still keeping the name in case you want to use it in the future, you can close all channels:

snapcraft close bootstack-ops edge beta candidate stable

and of course, keeping it private makes it even more… private :slight_smile:

If, on the other hand, you absolutely want to entirely banish the snap name from existence (which also means you will never, ever again in the history of the universe, be able to publish a snap under the bootstack-ops name, so you’d better be absolutely sure you want this!) we can delete/revoke the name. I think this may be what you want but I wanted to be very clear on the dire consequences of making this decision. If so, in order to keep a separate paper trail, please do as Gustavo suggested and open a new topic asking for the revocation of the snap. I apologize for the extra step, but consider this an “are you really really sure you want to do that?” kind of action to make you pause and consider things.


  • Daniel

This possibility concerns me. Consider a troll registering the name msoffice or office (both?) and then going through the above procedure to revoke the name. Now we have the possibility that Microsoft comes along and is willing to publish Microsoft Office to the store, but neither of their preferred, and discoverable, names are available because we allowed someone to irrevocably destroy the names…

No need to worry; revocations are scoped by developer, so all the troll would achieve is locking himself out of those names :slight_smile: Revocation means “I never want to use this name again, release it to the pool for everybody else”. Maybe I should have emphasized the you in “you will never, ever again in the history of the universe, be able to publish a snap under the … name”.