@jdstrand sorry for the digression (I know that there are gaps that need filling before we can reach anyone’s version of the ideal world).
With the current state of system-usernames (needing to inject code to drop privileges) I don’t believe it would simplify the process of packaging software for “kiosk” deployment.
@PiotrD - sorry this slipped off our list since it wasn’t in the ‘store-requests’ category.
Thank you for adjusting your snap to use ‘snap_daemon’. @advocacy, in comment 14 I mentioned:
can you review this snap’s suitability for the public store and vet the publisher?
@PiotrD - in addition to the vetting, assuming this snap will be granted access, can you state that you intend to not change your snap to run a command which plugs ‘browser-support’ under the root user (ie, you will keep using the ‘snap_daemon’ with any commands/daemons that plugs “browser-support”)?
Hi, @jdstrand
What do you mean by “vet the publisher” ? verify ? by creating a store-request in forum ?
I have already read this:
"the publisher should be vetted, as with classic snaps "
and I still don’t get this, because my terminal application runs in strict confinement and it is not intended to be a public snap. Only private, for internal use. Isn’t it possible to just publish snap as private only? Please explain it for me.
And Yes, I will not change this snap to run a command which plugs “browser-support” under root user.
@PiotrD - ok, I have made the necessary change to the review-tools to allow your snap to pass automated review, but that change is not in production yet. Please request a manual review for your revision 6 or upload a new revision and we’ll manually approve it and any new revisions until the change is in production.