On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:41:21AM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote: > * Revised Proposal 3 - subject=() and peer=() > > dbus [acquire] [<bus>] [subject=(<subject>)], > dbus [send | receive] [<bus>] [subject=(<subject>)] [peer=(<peer>)],
> * Revised Proposal 3.5 - subject {} and peer {}
>
> dbus [acquire] [<bus>] [subject {<subject>}],
> dbus [send | receive] [<bus>] [subject {<subject>}] [peer {<peer>}],
I slightly prefer 3.5 to 3 -- the = just feels like more noise to me.
Given that 3 looks like it is getting the consensus :) I'd like to cast
a vote _against_ the following token definitions:
PEER peer=(
SUBJECT subject=(
Those just seem wrong :) and I wanted to make sure that whatever is used
allows whitespace to separate keywords and operators.
Thanks
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
