Mike will correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the Tizen 2.2 libsmack APIs have been *temporarily* added to Tizen 3.0 to address this issue.
From: Bumjin Im [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 12:21 AM To: Bumjin Im; Schaufler, Casey Cc: Bartlomiej Grzelewski; [email protected]; 김원국; 아누즈; 최현진; 김기동 Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: [Dev] Code synchronization: smack, smack-privilege-config, libprivilege-control, security-server. Casey, Any opinion below? Build team asks me to resolve build issue but you have the key. Currently libsmack has dependency on libprivilege-control and has osp-installer, and osp-installer build fails because of absence of libsmack APIs that are added into Tizen 2.2. Bumjin -- May the Force be with you ---------------------------------------------------- * BumJin Im * Senior Engineer, Mobile S/W Platform lab, S/W Platform Team Samsung Electronics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Original Message ------- Sender : Bumjin Im<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> S5/Senior Engineer/System S/W Lab./Samsung Electronics Date : 2013-10-07 15:25 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: Re: [Dev] Code synchronization: smack, smack-privilege-config, libprivilege-control, security-server. Casey, Intel and Samsung security team agreed to remove 30,000 rule model and adapting your 3 domain model. So security-server and libprivilege-control will be surely modified quite a lot. The problem here we have is the *build* problem. The Platform build fails because of old libprivilege-control and security-server as well as absence of smack-privilege-config package. We will definitely modify those packages but I believe we should fix the build problem first. Bumjin -- May the Force be with you ---------------------------------------------------- * BumJin Im * Senior Engineer, Mobile S/W Platform lab, S/W Platform Team Samsung Electronics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Original Message ------- Sender : Schaufler, Casey<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date : 2013-10-05 03:14 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: [Dev] Code synchronization: smack, smack-privilege-config, libprivilege-control, security-server. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bartlomiej Grzelewski Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:15 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Dev] Code synchronization: smack, smack-privilege-config, libprivilege-control, security-server. Dear all, Due to problem with platform build I was asked to move commits(all of them were reviewed by Samsung engineers) from review.tizendev.org into review.tizen.org. This is the list of repositories that should be actualized: * platform/core/security/security-server (106 commits to move) The disposition of security-server for Tizen 3 has yet to be determined. The Intel security team is advocating that it be removed. It will certainly require significant change in the face of multiuser support if it is retained. * platform/core/security/libprivilege-control (110 commits to move) The Intel and Samsung security teams will need to talk about this one as well. The 32,000 rule model is something we don’t want to propagate into Tizen 3. * platform/upstream/smack (21 comits to move. all of them must be cherry-picked because tizendev does not contains upstream history) Please assure me that these are *not* the same libsmack changes that have been rejected upstream. They will *not* be accepted for Tizen 3. * framework/security/smack-privilege-config (2 commits) This package has not been introduced to Tizen 3 yet. There is no tizen branch. I would like to push commits for smack and smack-privilege-config through gerrit. Who should be added as reviewer? I believe that number of commits for security-server and libprivilege-config is too big to push them through gerrit. The history on tizendev and tizen is almost identical (usually tizen branch on tizen.org contains 6 or 7 additional commits at the top of history). If you don’t have any objections I would like to rebase all commits from tizen.org to base from tizendev (branch master) and push it directly to tizen branch with force option. We don’t do this anymore. If you have objection I will be force to use cherry-pick. Should I push all the commits through gerrit(who should be added as reviewer?) or push it directly to the git repository? Clearly the Intel and Samsung security teams need to be coordinating better on how we’re moving forward on Tizen 3. Making changes that we know we’re planning to revert is a bad idea. Best regards, Bartlomiej Grzelewski [cid:[email protected]] [http://ext.samsung.net/mailcheck/SeenTimeChecker?do=5b5b806e569672b092996b07624811405d2d8e375d34ef4bdc75e351fd20fb7b72bcb903983aba63d8c023f270a836a153cb8b1934afabac2f6aaf3d92ded142cf878f9a26ce15a0]
<<inline: image001.gif>>
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
