On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 13:27 -0400, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > On 13-07-11 10:40 AM, Ted Gould wrote: > > A click package may have (and won't in v1) several applications available > > from > > that package. Each of those are defined in the manifest with one being > > designated as "primary" for showing to the user removal/installation > > graphics. > > Do we know where this is going to be defined in the manifest file yet?
Was planning on proposing syntax after we discussed the principles. > > When the security hook runs it will create an AppArmor profile of the name > > $(click package)_$(application)_$(version) that the application should be > > confined with. > > That should be $(click package)_$(desktop file)_$(version) Do we want to make it "desktop file"? I guess my concern would be that we might not use desktop files in the future. If we called it "application" I think we could migrate the implementation if needed easier. We can just assume that in the click package there would be $(application).desktop for the desktop file. > > The same pattern as above should be consider the "Application ID" for all > > usage > > throughout the system. Including identifying the application to > > Mir/HUD/etc. > > > > So, how is unity going to obtain the "Application ID"? Good question. I was thinking that the user hook to write the desktop file in the user's home directory would create the file $(application id).desktop. Then Unity could just use that. Perhaps we should make an "XCanonical" property there to make it more explicit. Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
