ubuntu-appstore-developers team mailing list archive

[Ted Gould <ted@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 16:14 -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:

> I'm going to add the security section back in because I think it is worth
> considering the full manifest:
> 
>      {
>          "name": "com.ubuntu.apps.camera",
>          "version": "2.9.1daily13.06.13",
>          "maintainer": "Ugo Riboni <ugo.riboni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>",
>          "title": "Camera application",
>          "framework": "ubuntu-sdk-13.10",
>          "applications": {
>              "camera-app": {
>                  "type": "desktop"
>              }
>          },
>          "primary-application": "camera-app",
>          "security": {
>              "profiles": {
>                  "camera-app": {
>                      "policy_groups": [
>                          "camera",
>                          "location"
>                      ],
>                      "policy_version": 1.0
>                  }
>              }
>          }
>      }
> 
> Looking at this, it is clear that "applications" and "profiles" are similar--
> keys for the applications with properties associated with the key.



I agree.  Looking at the overall document I'm curious whether there is a
1:1 ratio between security profiles and applications.  Do you think it
would make sense to have one profile that could be used for several
applications?  Perhaps the application entry could have a
"security-profile" key if it wanted to reuse one, but in the standard
case they'd match.  So "camcorder-app" could steal "camera-app"s
profile.

In that case we'd definitely be going above and beyond the "easy to hand
edit" requirement, but it seems like advanced usage.  I'm fine if
advanced configs require a tool to be easy to edit.

I think that the rest of these comments probably hinge on your thoughts
there, so I'll stop, and then pick up these other points depending :-)

Ted

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