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/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 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
