[apparmor] [Branch ~kgupta8592/apparmor-profile-tools/trunk] Rev 7: added severity.py with tested convert_regex and the old and new config

[Kshitij Gupta]

Hello,

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Christian Boltz <apparmor at cboltz.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> was the off-list reply intentional? I'm CC'ing John, but if you want,
> you can move back to the mailinglist.
>
No wasn't intentional, I ended up using reply instead of reply-all. (I
must've been sleepy)
> Am Donnerstag, 20. Juni 2013 schrieben Sie:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
>> > Am Dienstag, 18. Juni 2013 schrieb Kshitij Gupta:
>> >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
>
>> > Well, I'm not sure yet if we can call it summer - it was quite cold
>> > for a long time ;-) Today was the second "hot" day (up to 37 °C).
>> Isn't it summer already?
>
> In theory yes, and the calendar also says so. But in practise... ;-)
>
Cool summers are always pleasant. ;-)
>> In here we're having the rainy season
>> (Monsoon). :-)
>
> Sounds like the perfect weather for programming ;-)
>
Programming is pretty much weather-proof. :-)
>> > Well, if you implement the "write tempfile, then replace original
>> > file" method, you won't have something like "old files" ;-) -
>> > you'll need something like "chown --reference $file" and "chmod
>> > --reference $file"
>> I have implemented the tempfile using the tempfile module ofcourse
>> ;-).
>
> :-)
>
>> So, you're saying we go with the --reference for existing files
>> and 600 for new ones. right?
>
> Correct.
>
>> Yes, I was thinking of bringing the testing techniques topic in the
>> next meeting.
>
> Just ping John and/or me on IRC or write to the mailinglist whenever
> needed.
>
> Besides that, the best base for a discussion is the code for one or two
> tests ;-)
>
Okay, I'll bug you guys on IRC. ;-)
>> I noticed the Test directory in AppArmor package with
>> stress and other test files. Till this point I've testing functions
>> for each modules before incorporating them, using available perl
>> libraries to compare outputs against. A rather formal approach would
>> be better.
>
> Yes, and (more important) you should use the "right" testing from the
> beginning - that's easier than migrating your "temporary" tests later.
>
That's something I fear and most certainly want to avoid. :-)

Regards,
Kshitij Gupta