Snaps officially supported by Canonical



Those snaps appear in the store under publisher “canonical”.


Adding a new snap to that list means a commitment from Canonical to maintain and support it. The snap can be initially uploaded under a personal account and its ownership subsequently transferred to the shared canonical account. Through the use of the collaboration feature, any number of developers can contribute to it and upload new versions.

The list above should always be kept up-to-date, with a reference to the packaging metadata and official maintainers. If a snap is removed, it should be crossed out and a reason for not maintaining the snap any longer should be provided, together with a timestamp.

Which snaps should be supported by canonical
Classic confinement request for gnome-software
Ownership of graylog snap

This document was created as the outcome of this conversation.


I’ve recently read a complaint elsewhere about Chromium being behind by 2 versions. The comment included “I thought they would be kept up-to-date.”. This is of course a reasonable expectation for snaps published by Canonical, as discussed in the thread that made us create this page, and is also part of the above statement.

But then, what’s the process we are following to not allow these supported snaps to linger behind? Do we have scheduled maintenance time for them and go around regularly making sure they remain up-to-date? Something else?

Also, this list was put in place last August. Has it really not changing since then, or do we need a process to keep it up-to-date too?

/cc @evan @kenvandine @popey


Yes, I’d like us to maintain a table of high-profile applications, their snap version, and the released upstream version. I will fold this into our regular comms.


@evan That sounds good regardless, but note that this topic is not about high-profile applications. This is about snaps that Canonical claims to support by itself. This topic and the associated one mentioned above have the background.


Regarding chromium specifically, I promoted the latest stable version to the stable channel today (see call for testing), and prior to that it had been in the candidate channel for 6 days, to allow for actual user testing and feedback (of which there hasn’t been this time around, but there usually is).

I’m usually on top of the chromium updates and I keep all the channels up-to-date. The perception of lagging behind recently is I think a combination of EOY holidays + build farm outages (chromium is quite a beast to build). We are now back to normal.


@oSoMoN Thanks for confirming it, and thanks for the update. I did notice your forum post and had already reported back to the user saying it was up-to-date now.

My main concern here is that we establish a trustable process to ensure we consistently keep these snaps up-to-date, or otherwise report that they are unsupported somehow.


Could the above page please be updated to let people know where to file bugs in these packages? It’s not obvious at all where an end user with issues is to file an bug or get support on a snap Canonical are delivering.


I have added links to bugs for the snaps I maintain (chromium and libreoffice).