Classic confinement request for lpcraft

store-requests
1

lpcraft is going to be a runner for Launchpad CI jobs, although it’s still under heavy development and not yet ready to use. It’s built using some of the same underlying libraries as snapcraft/charmcraft/rockcraft, so I believe it falls under the same reasons for requesting classic confinement as those tools (compilers, etc.; see e.g. Request classic confinement for rockcraft). I’ve set up a Launchpad recipe for it to push to the store under my name, although no revisions have yet been released since it’s stuck in review due to confinement: classic.

This is my first classic confinement request, so please let me know if I’ve missed anything and I’ll try to elaborate. Thanks!

1 Like
2

Thanks @cjwatson - lpcraft fits under the category of compilers / debug tools etc and requires the ability execute arbitrary binaries on the host. The requirements for classic confinement are understood. I have performed publisher vetting. This is now live.

1 Like
3

Gustavo asked us a while back to rename lpcraft out of the *craft namespace, since it doesn’t use the parts lifecycle; so we’ve renamed it to lpci. It’s still a classic snap with the same rationale and broadly the same setup (e.g. https://launchpad.net/~launchpad/lpci/+snap/lpci). Could we have classic confinement re-granted for the new name, please?

4

The requirement for classic confinement for lpci is understood. I have vetted the publisher. This is now live.

5

Out of interest, is there a plan to transfer this snap to the Canonical publisher account? Also do you have any plans to notify existing users of lpcraft so they can transition to lpci?

6

I wouldn’t mind transferring it to the Canonical account, but is there a checklist somewhere of what’s needed for that?

Yes, we plan to publish a new and probably final revision of lpcraft that displays a warning telling users to transition to lpci.

7

I apologize for this not being properly documented.

Canonical-owned snaps should have a reasonable commitment to maintenance and ideally a non-1 number of collaborators. The more the merrier.

We also ask that they are released to a stable risk and have proper metadata so they also present adequately in snapcraft.io, given that they will be associated with Canonical’s name.

The typical issues we see:

  • Only released to edge
  • Spartan, crappy summary and description
  • No screenshots, when they make sense. They may not, for some snaps, but they definitely spruce the page up a lot.
  • Only one maintainer/collaborator/owner.

Cheers!

  • Daniel