Syncplay project HAD a snap package: ran into serious problems and dropped it. Why?

Syncplay is a solution similar to Come Over, to watch, say a movie with a friend even though far apart.

Could some of you experts explain according to the convo here: on why they apparently had to drop it altogether? Why did things go very wrong? And could there be a helping hand to even convince 'em to even continue with a snap packaging of Syncplay? Maybe something has changed now for convenience.

Just sad to see stuff like this as snaps are very good for new users and common people to get their wanted software.

Thank you.

From a quick read, it was a classic confined snap which requires some additional knowledge, to make work correctly or at least to have it not misbehave.

Yes so it seems as they though are tech sawwy. Maybe there is a resource to point them towards to grasp this additional knowledge? Also: this could be a good chance to improve snap building and maintaining etc, as even the tech people of their level could not make it fly.

I mean so many seemingly mor difficult snaps are in place but Syncplay’s snap building to usable state reached force majeure :thinking:

History for snapcraft.yaml - Syncplay/syncplay (

They didn’t really do much in the way of implementation. They’re using desktop-qt4 for example, with its desktop-launch script which in classic snaps is a big issue due to the way it will leak environment variables.

They are requiring classic to be able to call the video player, which means they must be incredibly careful to clean the environment if they modify it in any way before launching any subprocesses from the host system.

This come across to me, as if a snap package indeed is NOT suitable for them to package on? Seems like there are some serious obstacles remaining to fix, to make snaps “easy” solution for even this caliber tech sawwy people as on Syncplay?

How to help them, if there is only a little push required to get 'em to snaps package again? Maybe Alan Pope @popey could have some word on this? He has come across as an avid snap advocate :muscle: (i don’t know why this got to me so much, i just want snaps to help people getting their software easily packaged for Linux!)

snaps are usually the easiest packaging mechanism out there and packaging a normal snap is a matter of a lunch break for an experienced packager, even for the more complex projects … while this is true for properly confined snaps, once you drop confinement by using classic you have to effectively deal with two OS environments and need to exactly know which bits of the environment should and which should not leak into the other while running your app.

their problem is not the snapping itself but the type of confinement they need to pick for their use case (classic is a special snowflake, rare in the store and requires extra reviews on the first upload to be manually granted)

I no longer work at Canonical on snaps, but I’m sure you can find others here to help.