On 2013-06-12 20:50:05, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 08:34 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>
> > I strongly prefer Proposal #3 over #1, #2 and #4. My personal preference
> > is for 'peer=()' and 'subject=()' instead of 'peer {}' and 'subject {}',
> > but I could live with '{}'. I think I somewhat prefer the access at the
> > front (right after dbus), but am fine at the end as well.
> >
>
> In an effort to push this along, I think we were getting close to
> iterating on #3 when #4 came in. Can others express their opinion on #4
> relative to #3?I like how #4 was so different from anything else that we've considered, but I have a hard time reading it. It takes a lot more brainpower for me to grok each rule. If I were writing new profiles on a daily basis, I would appreciate #4 more because of how it tries to reduce repetitive keywords. But new profile development doesn't happen that often (at least, in comparison to developing new code) so being able to quickly and easily understand an existing profile is most important to me. My preference is #3, in a single line format, and being careful to make sure that it is future proof for any type of line wrapping and factoring that we may want to do down the road. Tyler
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
