Rejecting apparmor

[Martin Pitt]

Hi Kees,

Kees Cook [2007-03-30 14:21 -0700]:
> As you saw and checked, I reuploaded, and it was accepted.  It's in 
> binary NEW now, so let me know if there's anything out of line in there, 
> and I'll get it fixed.  :)

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.

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

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt        http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer   http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org
-------------- 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/20070402/83ee26fb/attachment-0001.pgp