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

[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 binary and no arch, create
> a new package for binary utils, or just move it into the apparmor_parser
> packaging, and make it part of the default install.
> 
> What are peoples preferences for this

Are you really asking for packaging or where in the VCS tree it should
live? Packaging is more of a downstream concern[0], though we can make
recommendations and guidance there...

As for VCS layout, I don't mind rethinking it to be a bit more sane
and consistent, with an eye towards an autotools future (or some other
style infrastructure). In the short term, I am content with the parser
directory becoming more of an architecture dependent collection of
binaries. But it's not a strongly held position.

[0] Granted, back in the dark ages, we distributed distinct tarballs
    for various subtrees (and some of the infrastructure for this
    still exists, yay for hysterical artifacts), with the intent of
    having a 1-1 mapping between our tarballs and packages as well
    as trying to encourage loose coupling between the various parts
    of our tree. But it was more hassle than it was worth and I don't
    want to go back to that.

-- 
Steve Beattie
<sbeattie at ubuntu.com>
http://NxNW.org/~steve/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/attachments/20130724/e5b5aa03/attachment-0001.pgp>