Hi Felipe, thank you for your answer.
Felipe Sateler: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Ulrike Uhlig <ulr...@debian.org> wrote: >> Package: pulseaudio > I have some doubts: > > 1. What is the benefit of shipping the profile info in pulseaudio > versus shipping it in the apparmor-profiles package? The ultimate aim of the Debian AppArmor team is to have all profiles shipped in their respective packages. Why? Because the package maintainers are the ones who know how their package should work and they are ideally placed to see when something is wrong. This is also what Ubuntu is doing by the way. They have enabled AppArmor by default since years to provide users with Mandatory Access Control. Furthermore, the apparmor-profiles-extra package is supposed to disappear. > 2. Wouldn't that benefit be best achieved if the profile was shipped > by (pulse) upstream? > I'm wary of being in charge of stuff I don't use, and I would think You should use this kind of stuff ;) It's super easy to setup see https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/HowToUse > upstream would be as well. Would apparmor maintainers be willing to > step in to help when problems appear with the profile? Absolutely. To help you here, we (the AppArmor team) have set up this documentation: https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/Debug If ever people report bugs against Pulseaudio related to AppArmor, you can invoke help by the AppArmor team by usertagging such bugs so they will appear on our radar. Furthermore, the upstream authors are very responsive, and I'm convinced they react quickly. FYI upstream can be contacted through appar...@lists.ubuntu.com >> I'll try to prepare a patch to make it easier for you to integrate it. > That would be great. Ack. Cheers! ulrike