News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, package formats compared. Parent comment

Re:Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, package formats compared by zyga on Monday October 15, 2018 @02:00PM (#18222015)
Your knowledge is incorrect. Snaps don't have to be statically linked. They use a mount namespace with a predictable set of libraries that are maintained and receive security updates. In addition the application can bring additional libraries but those are on the application developer to maintain (or delegate to a hosted service like build.snapcraft.io to rebuild on security updates).

Sure, you can do static linking, you just don't have to and this is not how snaps work.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, package formats compared by emilsedgh on Monday October 29, 2018 @06:01AM (#18326196)
Thank you for correcting me. Appreciate it.

Although my point somehow still stands:

Vendors could've statically linked their apps for a long time and provided debs and rpms relatively easily for a long time.

[ Parent | on HN ]