On 2013-12-23 13:10:01, Steve Beattie wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:40:13PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:06:26PM -0800, Steve Beattie wrote: > > > Ah, that's a very good point. I don't object to this approach for > > > the parser. Another solution would be to move the public facing > > > headers outside of the src/ tree (include/ ? include/sys/ ?) and > > > add that location to the search path when building against in-tree > > > libapparmor. That would also serve us should libapparmor grow > > > additional external headers. > > > > I like the idea of clearly separating internal from external headers. Off > > the cuff it feels like it'd be a fair amount of churn up front but I think > > the long-term benefits of keeping the ABI documented seperately from the > > internal implementation details is worth the hassle. > > Yeah, in the end, I think it's the more correct solution. I'll try > to put together a patch to do that (and the associated automakery to > get things right in the libapparmor tree).
I agree that this is a better solution. Tyler
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
