I work at a non-profit that recycles, repairs and sells second hand computers. We have some QC tools that we run on those machines. Those QC tools do various tasks like installing upgrades, looking at hardware info/status, etc.
We need classic confinement in order for the snap to be able to do those tasks.
The snap name is fgqc (currently pending manual review).
@niemeyer, here is another use case for classic for installing. It seems to be a subset of what was discussed here: Classic confinement request for ubup, but the main use case is installing/upgrading debs.
@jdstrand@niemeyer I read through the thread and if I’ve understood correctly there tends to be a hesitation to allow new classic snaps since the goal is to remove classic confinement in the future.
I understand these concerns however I don’t believe there’s any way to get this to work without classic confinement or am I mistaken?
@UnlawfulMonad As hinted in the other thread, it’s not a single aspect that we take into account but the overall context for the application. Such management platforms for example is one thing that we’ve been trying to avoid, at least right now, because even if it’s in good faith and for productive reasons, these tools have code in them that looks a lot like a controlled backdoor, which makes it harder to review and easier to have serious bugs on because, again it’s part of the nature of the application in the first place. Also, that kind of application in general can manage itself, so the benefit of having it as a snap is somewhat limited.