On 09/12/2013 04:33 PM, Martin Albisetti wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jamie Strandboge <ja...@canonical.com> wrote: >> * When registering as a developer, I was asked to enter my PayPal account >> email address. Two things: >> - I wasn't actually charged anything, but I thought we were going to >> reqire >> app developers to pay some modest registration fee (eg, $1 or less). >> What >> is the status of this? I feel it is an important, though admittedly >> imperfect, tool to link a developer to a human > > Actually, that's currently in place to verify that we can somehow pay > you. It's inherited from the old MyApps. We're going to review it as > part of introducing purchasing of click apps. > Just so I'm clear-- all app developers will have to pay the nominal fee (this would be good), and that this will be introduced when we support purchasing apps? ... > >> * I uploaded an armhf binary (due to a local C++ extension) and was told >> that >> "not a valid architecture: armhf". I was aware of this before uploading >> but >> I was wondering what the current status of this is-- click build put the >> architecture in DEBIAN/control as 'armhf'. Is this valid for the appstore >> now or should we waive these through for now and just wait for fat >> packages? > > Right, so I think that we agreed that what we'd do is that packages > would declare what architectures they support in the manifest, and > that we'd only require fat packages when you had more than one > architecture. > The server and client filtering hasn't landed yet, but I think it's ok > to land armhf for now. > Oh, right, I forgot about this. I'll fix my package in the next upload. Thanks! > >> * My app was accepted even though it required special attention due to red >> flagged permissions. >> >> Now, to be fair, I removed permissions that are normally granted and >> preemptively justified why these particular permissions were required. >> Perhaps >> it was my compelling argument in my upload comment for the reviewer or >> perhaps >> being a member of the security team helped me. ;) Joking aside, I'd like to >> take >> this opportunity to reinforce that apps should be using the 'common' policy >> groups. If the review tools complain about red-flagged security permissions >> or >> use of 'reserved' policy groups, please contact a member of the security team >> for the time being (probably me since I am also a member of the review team, >> but >> any of us will do)-- there might be things that are lacking in our >> confinement >> that are worth review, bugs we need to fix in our policy, or the requested >> permissions are simply too permissive. > > Right. I reviewed the app and was going to ping you about those extra > permissions until I saw who the author was ;) > I have been bouncing any other app that requests non-standard permissions. > Awesome, and I didn't mean to call you out, just doing a friendly reminder. :)
-- Jamie Strandboge http://www.ubuntu.com/ -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers Post to : ubuntu-appstore-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
