ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Jamie Strandboge <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/17/2014 07:32 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 05:51:27PM +0000, John McAleely wrote:
>> On 17/01/14 17:04, Oliver Grawert wrote:> hi,
>>> Am Freitag, den 17.01.2014, 16:47 +0000 schrieb John McAleely:
>>>> I think that is a genie we would rather not let out of the bottle. As
>>>> you note, there are already 7 cases where device specifics are needed. I
>>>> assume that as we gain more devices, that number will grow, even if we
>>>> also act to add generic abstractions into the common parts to manage
>>>> those device specifics.
> 
>>> well, as you can see from the discussion none of these 7 files *need* to
>>> be in the rootfs tarball ... the bluetooth one should be chipset
> 
>> Understood & agreed. I think I'm surprised that we are adding stuff to
>> the android tarball in any of these cases, rather than building in
>> some sort of Ubuntu device specific tarball/image/partition/deb.
> 
>> I think that most of these will be examples of Ubuntu choosing to use
>> a different userland stack to Android, and asking the Android tarball
>> to carry device configs for those sits oddly with me.
> 
> To clarify, what we're talking about here is the android source package, not
> the android tarball per se.  The android package in Ubuntu is the point
> where we gather up the contents for the recovery and boot partitions, and
> the loopback filesystem used for the container, all of which are currently
> android based.  But we don't necessarily need to add these configs to an
> android tree in order to have them included in the correct partitions.  If
> it's preferable, we could certainly have them live in the lxc-android-config
> source package, and have that spit out a binary package which the android
> source depends on when it builds its images.  (But then you still have the
> two-stage build process to contend with, which involves rebuilding the
> android package anyway, at least until we start dealing with non-android
> devices.)
> 

Now that the android 4.4 stack is is being tested, we are seeing more of these
hardware specific accesses. I feel like the thread sorta died without clear
direction on how to move forward. The current existing plan is to:

 * have apparmor-easyprof-ubuntu ship the /usr/share/apparmor/hardware/*
   directories (so profiles can reference it)
 * move the existing policy from /usr/share/apparmor/hardware/*/* into
   lxc-android-config as described in the bug[1] and previously on this list[2]

Is this still the plan of record or is something changing?

[1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxc-android-config/+bug/1197133
[2]https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-September/037654.html


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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature