On 08/06/2013 12:18 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > On 08/06/2013 01:45 PM, John Johansen wrote: >> On 08/05/2013 03:59 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > >>> and users/admins can adjust /etc/apparmor.d/tunables/xdg-dirs or drop files >>> into >>> /etc/apparmor.d/tunables/xdg-dirs.d, providing a welcome convenience[2]. >>> > ... >> I know that people like the drop in dir bits, but quite bluntly I don't, for >> most >> things, its a way of papering over real problems (of course I consider >> treating >> profiles the way we do with packaging as a problems so ...) > > Well, we have it for home too, so I followed that (and we had the same > conversation when I added it-- the slipperiness of my argument is not lost on > me). We could make all the .d directories distro specific, but Debian derived > distros would most likely all end up implementing .d themselves (we can't fix > their longstanding conffile handling so they'll need to come up with something > at least until policy is moved somewhere else). I am one that agrees that the > .d > directories work well enough with minimal effort (of course, I'm biased) and I > can drop the .d directory and have distros do what they want (Debian and > Ubuntu > will likely have to do .d in the short term (there are other more convoluted > options, but we don't have to discuss them here), but others could simply > append > the output of apparmor-xdg-dirs*.py to /etc/apparmor.d/tunables/xdg-dirs). > > ... > No, this was just me taking the opportunity to rant about conf file handling and policy. For the moment I will accept its the best solution we can offer, and I would rather try to standardize it than having each distro end up with the same solution, with slightly different names
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
