snapstore VS Flatseal

- from https://github.com/noise/snapstore/

the snapstore demonstrated there is no longer in the github repo, or compatible with snapd anymore https://github.com/noise/snapstore

The current Snap Store is not open source. The one you referenced is dead as proven by the repo you're article refers to: https://github.com/noise/snapstore/

If you're referring to the old HOWTO article for hosting your own snap store server, the software it used to do that stopped working several years ago.

That's nice and all, but besides the complete lack of official serversoftware that can be hosted by anyone, I'm going to guess that forcing another URL would mean that it uses that repo INSTEAD OF the official one. With regular package managers and Flatpaks, that's not the case. You can add repo's in ADDITION to the originals with those. The only mention of a self-hostable snap server that I can find, is this one. However, it is an unofficial server and has been depreciated. In other words: it's not compatible/functional with the latest version of Snapd (the clientside) anymore and will remain like that.

They used to have an example implementation here, though: https://ubuntu.com/blog/howto-host-your-own-snap-store https://github.com/noise/snapstore

interesting read. unfortunately, the 'snapstore' github project (here) that it links to now says:

Your link is an blogpost from 2016 that points to: https://github.com/noise/snapstore README: snapstore was a minimalist example of a "store" for snaps, but is not compatible with the current snapd implementation. As a result I have removed the contents here to avoid further confusion.

In fact, Bret Barker has published an open source (Apache License) SNAP store on GitHub. We’re already looking at how to flesh out his proof-of-concept and bring it into snapcore itself.

https://github.com/noise/snapstore/

And not only that, the idea of portals is, IMO, misguided. See this view/bugreport when a flatseal user understands that even though they restricted permissions to access a certain area, the flatpak, itself, can ask to open files there and if OK'd that will be allowed. Their expectation is that with the overrides say "no access" it means "no access even if the flatpak asks very nicely". https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal/issues/196

Since you installed the programme via Flatpak, you should simply lack the necessary rights (https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/sandbox-permissions.html). You can extend the rights quite easily with https://github.com/tchx84/flatseal.

Yes, filed https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal/issues/196 a while ago, got no joy.

One design feature than can turn into an issue in some scenarios (usually dev tools) is the permissions of a flatpak. In case I need to tweak things, I use Flatseal. I know you can manually do this from the command line but I don’t change permissions that often so I don’t bother learning how to do that.

Does the Flatpak Permissions Settings replace a tool like Flatseal?

What about flatseal then ? https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal

https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal (Also on Discover. For security reasons, the Discover store installs apps as sandboxed "flatpak" apps. This one is used to view what each up can do and change the permissions of apps. May be required if the sandboxing breaks something, though usually not required.)

I believe it does. As an example if I try running Godot from the Steam flatpak, it won't be able to see any of the contents of my ~/Projects folder unless I explicitly allow the steam flatpak access to that directory that via flatpak's CLI options or using Flatseal