[apparmor] [Bug 395511] Re: new apparmor profile for postgrey
** Summary changed: - new apparmor profile + new apparmor profile for postgrey -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of AppArmor Developers, which is the registrant for AppArmor Profiles. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/395511 Title: new apparmor profile for postgrey Status in AppArmor Profiles: New Status in “postgrey” package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: created apparmor profile for postgrey. it's working fine for me for more than a month. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/apparmor-profiles/+bug/395511/+subscriptions -- AppArmor mailing list AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
Re: [apparmor] [PATCH] towards a common build infrastructure
Hello, Am Sonntag, 6. Mai 2012 schrieb Kees Cook: On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 01:46:30AM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote: I prefer hand-written Makefiles - but that might be a matter of personal taste ;-) (and, in my case, missing knownledge about automake) I find it much easier to deal with large projects via autoconf and automake. There is rarely anything 'strange' enough that it requires much fiddling. I prefer it because it makes the build system familiar to most people trying to understand it, and the templates are small. I'd guess even more people understand plain Makefiles ;-) and I can guarantee you that nearly nobody understands the automake-generated Makefiles (reading them might be needed to track down build issues) === modified file 'README' You only deleted the lines describing the current build system, but didn't add any note how to build AppArmor with automake... It's still there. It's just hugely reduced. (Which is why I wanted to push for this.) Re-reading your patch a second time, I noticed that you are right. I expected some + lines in the README patch, but you found a clever way to recycle the existing lines ;-) I just want the build system simplified. Well, I remember (from another project) that plain Makefiles can work with subdirs without problems. Something like this will work as Makefile in the top-level directory (untested braindump) subdirs=changehat/mod_apparmor changehat/pam_apparmor libraries/libapparmor parser profiles utils all: for dir in $(subdirs) ; do make -C $$dir || exit 1 ; done clean: for dir in $(subdirs) ; do make -C $$dir clean || exit 1 ; done install: for dir in $(subdirs) ; do make -C $$dir install || exit 1 ; done And now tell me how automake can make things simpler than this ;-) Hmm, I should have sent this as patch earlier - it would have been easier than updating the spec with tons of make -C calls... Regards, Christian Boltz [1] after dropping the large automake patch -- Eight Megabytes Always Continuously Swapping ;-) [Paketbeschreibung für emacs in SuSE 8.2] -- AppArmor mailing list AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
Re: [apparmor] [PATCH] towards a common build infrastructure
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 12:09:08AM +, Seth Arnold wrote: Use $MAKE instead, that way the jobserver can keep informed about how many jobs sub-makes are using. I do like that ./configure --prefix makes selecting between /usr and /usr/local easy but I have trouble seeing what else it gives us. Sanity for shared library creation (libtool, pkg-config, etc), automatic handling of finding functions (e.g. I'm building on Debian kfreebsd...), and finding dep version (e.g. swig, perl, python, ruby, apache). Trying to do all this by hand is a waste of time -- all of the needed logic already exists in autoconf/automake. From: Christian Boltz appar...@cboltz.de [...] I'd guess even more people understand plain Makefiles ;-) and I can guarantee you that nearly nobody understands the automake-generated Makefiles (reading them might be needed to track down build issues) It's extremely rare to need to look at anything by the Makefile.am. Well, I remember (from another project) that plain Makefiles can work with subdirs without problems. Something like this will work as Makefile in the top-level directory (untested braindump) Right. When I redesigned the Inkscape build system, the final result was a single top-level Makefile (generated by autoconf and automake), that allowed for full parallelization of the build, etc. It was extremely nice. We can easily get there, but doing the migration is going to take a few steps. And now tell me how automake can make things simpler than this ;-) I know it'll be hard to convince you, but without being too flippant, the automake version of your example is a single line, just SUBDIRS = :) -Kees -- Kees Cook -- AppArmor mailing list AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
