On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Colin Watson <cjwat...@ubuntu.com> 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 [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone > Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
