Rejecting apparmor

[Kees Cook]

Hi Martin,

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:35:47AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> The debs look mostly ok, I just have a question about this in -utils:
> 
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-status -> apparmor_status
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-audit -> audit
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-autodep -> autodep
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-complain -> complain
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-enforce -> enforce
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-genprof -> genprof
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-logprof -> logprof
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2007-03-30 19:43:33 ./usr/sbin/aa-unconfined -> unconfined
> 
> The non-aa-prefixed names are pretty generic. Which ones are the
> 'official' names? If the aa- ones are generally used, then I'd rather
> have the binaries called aa-, and drop the generic names, just to
> avoid potential file name clashes and confusion.

Upstream has been migrating to the "aa-" namespace, but hasn't finished.  
Perhaps Ubuntu can be the first to require the "aa-" prefix for all the 
tools.  :)

> Anyway, this can be fixed with an upload and isn't severe enough for
> rejection, so I accepted them for now.

Sure, I will modify the packaging to enforce the "aa-" namespace.

-- 
Kees Cook
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-archive/attachments/20070402/6870746f/attachment-0001.pgp