[apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-24 Thread John Johansen
So we have a binary (C based) version of aa-exec that just needs a little more revision before we land it. One of the things we need to decide is which package to put it in. We could modify the utils packaging to handle binary and no arch, create a new package for binary utils, or just move it int

Re: [apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-24 Thread Jamie Strandboge
On 07/24/2013 11:26 AM, John Johansen wrote: > So we have a binary (C based) version of aa-exec that just needs a little > more revision before we land it. One of the things we need to decide is > which package to put it in. > > We could modify the utils packaging to handle binary and no arch, cre

Re: [apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-24 Thread Seth Arnold
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:26:43AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: > So we have a binary (C based) version of aa-exec that just needs a little > more revision before we land it. One of the things we need to decide is > which package to put it in. > > We could modify the utils packaging to handle binar

Re: [apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-24 Thread John Johansen
On 07/24/2013 11:02 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > On 07/24/2013 11:26 AM, John Johansen wrote: >> So we have a binary (C based) version of aa-exec that just needs a little >> more revision before we land it. One of the things we need to decide is >> which package to put it in. >> >> We could modify

Re: [apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-24 Thread Steve Beattie
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:26:43AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: > So we have a binary (C based) version of aa-exec that just needs a little > more revision before we land it. One of the things we need to decide is > which package to put it in. > > We could modify the utils packaging to handle binar

Re: [apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-24 Thread John Johansen
On 07/24/2013 02:35 PM, Steve Beattie wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:26:43AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: >> So we have a binary (C based) version of aa-exec that just needs a little >> more revision before we land it. One of the things we need to decide is >> which package to put it in. >> >>

Re: [apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-25 Thread Jamie Strandboge
On 07/24/2013 05:29 PM, John Johansen wrote: > On 07/24/2013 02:35 PM, Steve Beattie wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:26:43AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: >> directory becoming more of an architecture dependent collection of >> binaries. But it's not a strongly held position. >> > I actually do

Re: [apparmor] Where should the new aa-exec live in packaging

2013-07-25 Thread John Johansen
On 07/25/2013 03:57 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > On 07/24/2013 05:29 PM, John Johansen wrote: >> On 07/24/2013 02:35 PM, Steve Beattie wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:26:43AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: > >>> directory becoming more of an architecture dependent collection of >>> binaries. B