Hello, Thanks @Christian I have been able to setup those bindings but am yet to try them out. I'll be sure to let you know if I run into some trouble with them.
I just thought some people might get annoyed by the unnecessary mails piling up in their inbox. We actually had that problem on the GSoC students mailing list lately, but I'll take your word for it. I agree to your point, we will greatly benefit from the extra pair of eyes going through everything. However, I think we can create a [GSoC] label and start a new thread so people can simply filter out these mails if they are not interested. @John, @Seth and @Christian thanks for those ideas about features (keep them coming :-) ), I'll get back to you about the details on those ideas in a day or two. Meanwhile, I propose we have a feature request list type of thing? I'm not sure but would the Blueprint section of Launchpad be appropriate for it (or any other place that everyone can view and edit)? Meanwhile, I have been thinking of doing the bottom-up style development starting from the core libraries moving upwards to the tools. So, I'll have a basic version of a module out of those for you guys to review by tomorrow (hopefully). I'd love some input in that direction. Anything about organisation of libraries etc. @Christian thanks for renaming the team, I never was any good at naming things. :-P Regards, Kshitij Gupta <--Sig coming soon ;-)--> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Seth Arnold <seth.arn...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:31:31PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote: >> Correct - the only missing part is support in the utilities, which is >> now on your list of wanted features ;-) >> >> Talking about feature ideas - it would be nice to have profile >> modification scriptable. I'm thinking about something like >> >> aa-$toolname --profile "/usr/sbin/httpd2-prefork" \ >> --addhat "vhost_foo" >> aa-$toolname --profile "/usr/sbin/httpd2-prefork//vhost_foo" \ >> --add '/home/foo/httpdocs/** r' > > Scriptable would be nice, and maybe even an easy fall-out of new tool > work. --addhat probably only makes sense if you can easily integrate > with templates. Maybe aa-easyprof is useful to consider there. > >> Can you add this to the "nice-to-have" list? >> >> > At the time of saving a >> > profile, the user can be presented with the same as an option for the >> > same. Any other way you'd want it implemented? >> >> A config option (change main profile / write to local / always ask) >> would be nice to avoid the user gets asked every time he runs logprof. >> This also implies a commandline switch for logprof to be able to >> override the config setting. >> >> Maybe we should also have a way to set different defaults per profile. >> @John, Seth, Steve: do you think this is necessary? If yes, how would >> you implement it? > > I could see a difference for distribution-provided profiles that are > being extended vs self-authored profiles that are being modified. > > I wouldn't really want to have to ask for one behavior or the other -- > but I could imagine that aa-genprof could add "created on this machine" > profile names into a list, and modify those profiles directly, and > profiles that aren't on the list get their <local/foo> files modified. > > Thanks > > -- > AppArmor mailing list > AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor > -- AppArmor mailing list AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
