ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Ted Gould <ted@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 13:27 -0400, Marc Deslauriers wrote:

> On 13-07-11 10:40 AM, Ted Gould wrote:
> > A click package may have (and won't in v1) several applications available from
> > that package.  Each of those are defined in the manifest with one being
> > designated as "primary" for showing to the user removal/installation graphics.
> 
> Do we know where this is going to be defined in the manifest file yet?



Was planning on proposing syntax after we discussed the principles.


> > When the security hook runs it will create an AppArmor profile of the name
> > $(click package)_$(application)_$(version) that the application should be
> > confined with.
> 
> That should be $(click package)_$(desktop file)_$(version)



Do we want to make it "desktop file"?  I guess my concern would be that
we might not use desktop files in the future.  If we called it
"application" I think we could migrate the implementation if needed
easier.  We can just assume that in the click package there would be
$(application).desktop for the desktop file.


> > The same pattern as above should be consider the "Application ID" for all usage
> > throughout the system.  Including identifying the application to Mir/HUD/etc.
> > 
> 
> So, how is unity going to obtain the "Application ID"?


Good question.  I was thinking that the user hook to write the desktop
file in the user's home directory would create the file $(application
id).desktop.  Then Unity could just use that.  Perhaps we should make an
"XCanonical" property there to make it more explicit.

Ted

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