ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Jamie Strandboge <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/23/2014 07:23 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> 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 about adding such safety belts to our click packaging tools as well?
> 
> e.g. bail out or present big warnings if someone tries to package up
> an app with disagreeing versions?
> 

I might also note that click-review-tools is now packaged and QtCreator is going
to start using it. These are the same tools (mostly) that the app store review
process will use. If click is going to support it natively, perhaps QtCreator
doesn't have to....

-- 
Jamie Strandboge                 http://www.ubuntu.com/