ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Alexander Sack <asac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:48:07AM -0600, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> This affects click-apparmor and while we did talk about this a bit at UDS, I
>> want to restate it here. I realize click doesn't care about this, but will we
>> expect things like this:
>>
>> "frameworks": "ubuntu-sdk-13.10, ubuntu-14.04-qml"
>>
>> If so, that complicates things greatly because there is one APP_ID defined per
>> app in the click package and therefore only one apparmor profile per app.
>
> I think the most practical way to deal with this is roughly as you
> suggest, by causing the review tools to reject ridiculous combinations.
> I don't expect particularly many, and it should be easy to avoid them
> getting out of hand; doing it in the review tools gives us more
> flexibility than doing it in the packaging system.

How do we find and define what the "sane" combinations are? In
particular, I am concerned about the increase of complexity to
validate the "sane" combinations.



>
> --
> Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx]
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp