[SRU] 1.0.38-0ubuntu0.16.04.4

[Michael Vogt]

A new ubuntu-core-launcher release that fixes various issues with snapd.

Changes:
- ubuntu-core-launcher is renamed to snap-confine to reflect better that it is not ubuntu specific
- fix nvidia handling
- bugfixes: #1574556, #1592696, #1592402

Test plan:
- run all our existing integration tests (which include running a lot of snap apps via the launcher) against this version of ubuntu-core-launcher/snpa-confine to ensure there are no regressions
- manual test of the 20 most important snaps

Regression potential:
- some packaging change that have regression potential but can also be easily tested
- build changes (switch to autotools etc), little regression potential here
- code changes: diff looks bigger than it is mostly because the code got split up for easier maintenance
- features: little regression risk here, nvidia is broken for snaps right now and this change will unbreak it.
- new features that are disabled on ubuntu (e.g. arch-specific nvidia support) have no regression potential
 - the switch to a chroot-base approach has a regression potential because it changes fundamentally how the snap execution environment looks like but it was tested on ubuntu and many other distributions without any issues.

[Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)]

This needs to be updated to 1.0.36 now. Prior versions with the rename accidentally removed apparmor confinement of the launcher which would be a regression.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

What is the test plan here for verifying that there are no regressions on existing systems? The diff is not reviewable at all, there's intrusive packaging changes etc., so this needs a rigid test plan to ensure that there are no regressions. Do we have tests for snaps in the store? One possibility would be to run the tests for the existing snaps with the new version and checking for regressions.

[Steve Langasek (vorlon)]

Note that there is an autopkgtest for snapd which depends on snap-confine; this should be sufficient to verify the correctness of snap-confine's behavior.

[Steve Langasek (vorlon)]

Hello Michael, or anyone else affected,

Accepted snap-confine into xenial-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snap-confine/1.0.38-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

there is a regression in the packaging, see bug #1605052

[Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)]

There is a regression in (at least) the log-observe interface, see bug #1606277.

[Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand)]

I should mention that the regression I saw was with 1.0.38-0ubuntu0.16.04.2.