snap info for http://snapcraft.io/kate does state that its publisher is kde, whereas the output of snap info for test-snapd-gsettings does state that its publisher is test-snaps-canonical. However, although http://snapcraft.io/publisher/kde is operational, http://snapcraft.io/publisher/test-snaps-canonical is not. Why is this true?
The /publisher/foo pages are reserved for publishers of merit. For example, I don’t have a publisher page because I am not a well known project or company. If you want your own publisher page, you’ll need to contact Canonical directly.
2 Likes
Understood. However, surely Canonical is a publisher of merit…?
I think Canonical is split on two points, internally they use several different accounts rather than the canonical canonical Canonical account (sorry I had to!). The snap above is using test-snaps-canonical.
The other problem being that Canonical has a lot of snaps that they don’t author, just package, e.g, Docker. So I think there might be an inclination to say that a publisher page should be work that you actually are responsible for in its entireity. I don’t think there’s a proper policy on this, but everything on the KDE publisher page actually belongs to KDE’s group. Canonicals publisher page would be a lot smaller if it was limited to its own works, or ridiculously large if it was just anything Canonical happened to distribute on their own account, it’d end up with a significant proportion of Gnome apps for example.
But in general I think it would be nice to have more publisher pages too.
1 Like
251 public snaps published by the canonical canonical Canonical account!
1 Like
Because of the amount of snaps that canonical has published, why is http://snapcraft.io/publisher/canonical not operational either? Being able to observe all of the snaps that KDE has created has been very useful for discovery of new software.