[apparmor] aa-enabled

[John Johansen]

On 11/28/2015 01:30 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Am Samstag, 28. November 2015 schrieb John Johansen:
>> v3
>>
>> change conflicting/unknown option warning message slightly
>> output error string on failure
>> add binutils dir
>> add manpage
>> add makefile
>> add pot file
> 
>> === added file 'binutils/Makefile'
>> --- binutils/Makefile	1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
>> +++ binutils/Makefile	2015-11-28 18:18:25 +0000
> 
> It looks like you copied large parts of parser/Makefile.
> Would it make sense to split those common parts off to a separate file, 
> like common/Make-c.rules?
> 
yes, I did. And yes it might make sense to factor them

> (That's nothing that should stop you from adding aa-enabled, so feel 
> free to do that as a follow-up patch.)
> 
right

> BTW: It seems you never commited the parser/Makefile cleanup patch series 
> you sent a while ago. Is there a special reason, or did you just forget 
> it? (Also, does binutils/Makefile need some similar cleanups, or are they 
> already integrated?)
> 
Not forgotten, I just haven't gotten around to rebasing it to factor out
the 2 patches that have not been acked. I have it on my todo and it will
some up some time this weekend, hopefully.

This contains several of the fixes, but I will check and make sure it
isn't missing anything.

>> === added file 'binutils/aa-enabled.c'
>> --- binutils/aa-enabled.c       1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
>> +++ binutils/aa-enabled.c       2015-11-28 17:34:45 +0000
> ...
>> +#ifndef PACKAGE
>> +#define PACKAGE ""
>> +#define LOCALEDIR ""
>> +#endif
> 
> Now that we have a nice Makefile, is this still needed?
> 
No

>> === added file 'binutils/po/aa-enabled.pot'
>> --- binutils/po/aa-enabled.pot	1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
>> +++ binutils/po/aa-enabled.pot	2015-11-28 18:23:11 +0000
>> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
>> +# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE.
>> +# Copyright (C) YEAR Canonical Ltd
>> +# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE
>> package. +
>> # FIRST AUTHOR <EMAIL at ADDRESS>, YEAR.
> 
> That's a very informative copyright header, especially the uppercase 
> parts ;-)
> 
hehe, I suppose I should fix that :)

> 
> That said: The patch looks good to me (with the questions answered or 
> addressed), but I'll leave acking it for someone who understands C 
> better.
>