ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Ted Gould <ted@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 10:36 -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:

> I thought we solved this in the other thread. See the wiki[1]: for each unique
> profile name in the click manifest, there is an apparmor profile. Each profile
> name in the manifest corresponds to the desktop file. We then generate apparmor
> profile names based on $name_$desktopfile_$version, where 'name' and 'version'
> come from the toplevel manifest and 'desktopfile' is a key from the profiles
> dictionary. Eg, the apparmor profile names and filenames on disk are:
>  * com.ubuntu.developer.username.myapp_myapp.desktop_0.1
>  * com.ubuntu.developer.username.myapp_myapp-camera.desktop_0.1
> 
> You take the same approach that my team did and use the name, version and list
> of desktop files (ie, keys to the profiles dictionary) to generate your APP_IDs.


Yes, we can in general.

If we did got that route for the IDs we'd have to decide how/where the
version gets dropped and used.  I would expect for things like
authorizing the location access we'd want it once per-app?  Once
per-package?

I guess I'm more trying to say that we don't have consensus here, not
that it's not solvable.

Thomas, would an app ID like the above work for Mir/Unity?

Ted

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part