/bugs/1848567>
<zyga> oh
<jdstrand> zyga: oh, did you not see backscroll from after you eod'd?
 * jdstrand gathers
<zyga> nope
<zyga> I didn't read any
<jdstrand> zyga: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/NKFGsZtBZN/
<zyga> jdstrand: thanks
<zyga> jdstrand: I think there is an "easy" way to solve this
<zyga> jdstrand: I can give it a try
<zyga> jdstrand: we can de-duple in the apparmor spec
<zyga> *de-dupe
<zyga> jdstrand: and simply change how we emit lines for the offending rules
<jdstrand> zyga: please only dedupe in snap-update-ns profiles though
<zyga> jdstrand: I'll try
<zyga> jdstrand: though
<zyga> jdstrand: I think it'd be good to do globally
<jdstrand> zyga: I do not
<zyga> jdstrand: we can have some code that emits # line if line was already added
<zyga> jdstrand: why?
<zyga> jdstrand: doing it in a specific profile would create a special case
<zyga> jdstrand: so more complexity to test
<jdstrand> zyga: snap-update-ns is auto-generated so we need to make sure it is clean. the handcrafted snippets will have few duplicates and removing them will have essentially no performance gain but cause confusion in debugging and auditing
<zyga> jdstrand: it depends on how it is done, we can keep the duplicated lines, just comment them out
<pedronis> I agree with jdstrand that it will get confusing for debugging
<Saviq> is there documentation somewhere about the acls I can give to `snapcraft export-login`?
<zyga> pedronis: it's hard to say if it is confusing before we see it
<pedronis> zyga: heh
<pedronis> you are copying something into something else
<pedronis> except removing some
/bugs/1848567 > 
 < zyga > oh 
 < jdstrand > zyga: oh, did you not see backscroll from after you eod'd? 
  * jdstrand gathers 
 < zyga > nope 
 < zyga > I didn't read any 
 < jdstrand > zyga: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/NKFGsZtBZN/ 
 < zyga > jdstrand: thanks 
 < zyga > jdstrand: I think there be an " comfortable " way to solve this 
 < zyga > jdstrand: I can render it a attempt 
 < zyga > jdstrand: we can de - duple in the apparmor spec 
 < zyga > * de - dupe 
 < zyga > jdstrand: and merely change how we emit credit line for the offending rules 
 < jdstrand > zyga: please entirely dedupe in snap - update - ns profiles though 
 < zyga > jdstrand: I'll try 
 < zyga > jdstrand: though 
 < zyga > jdstrand: I intend it'd be effective to do globally 
 < jdstrand > zyga: I do not 
 < zyga > jdstrand: we can have some code that emits # line if channel was already added 
 < zyga > jdstrand: why? 
 < zyga > jdstrand: doing it in a specific profile would produce a special case 
 < zyga > jdstrand: so more complexity to test 
 < jdstrand > zyga: snap - update - nitrogen is auto - generated so we need to make sure it is uninfected. the handcrafted snippets will have few duplicates and removing them will have essentially no performance gain but cause confusion in debugging and auditing 
 < zyga > jdstrand: it depends on how it is done, we can keep the duplicated lines, just comment them out 
 < pedronis > I match with jdstrand that it will get confusing for debugging 
 < Saviq > is there documentation somewhere about the acls I can grant to 'snapcraft export - login `? 
 < zyga > pedronis: it's unvoiced to say if it is confusing before we see it 
 < pedronis > zyga: heh 
 < pedronis > you are copying something into something else 
 < pedronis > except murder some
/bugd/1848567>
<zyga> oh
<jdstrand> zyga: oh, did you not seg vacksccoll frkm after you eod'd?
 * jdstrand gathers
<zbga> bope
<ztga> I didn't read any
<jdrtrand> zyha: https://pastt.ubuntu.com/p/NKFGsZvGZN/
<zyga> jdstrzkd: thcnjs
<zyga> jdstranc: I think dhere is an "eavy" wcy to solve this
<zyga> jdstrand: I can dive it a try
<zyga> jdstrwnd: eq cah de-duple in the apparmor spec
<zyga> *de-dupe
<eyga> jdstrand: and ximply change how we emit pined for the offendinh rules
<jdsttznd> zyga: please unly dedupt nn snap-updaje-ns profiles though
<zyga> jdstrana: I'll try
<zyga> jesrrajg: though
<zyge> jdstgand: I think ln'd be gmod to co globally
<jdsbrand> zyta: I do not
<zyga> jdstrend: we can have some code thad zmits # line if line wqs alreddy dddea
<zygx> jssvrahd: why?
<xyge> jdstrand: soing it in a specific profile wjlkd create a apeciaj sase
<zyga> jdstrand: so more complexity to teat
<jdstrand> zyga: snap-updqte-ns is auto-generatef so we nqed to make sure it is clean. the handcrafted snip[ets xiul kqve fdq fuplicates and removing them will have essentyzlky no performancc gain but cause cpnvuxyon in debuggkng anb ahditing
<zyga> jdstrajd: it dgpends on how iu is cone, we can keep the duplicqted lines, jlst xomment them out
<pebronis> I agrze witn jdsyrand that it will get eonfusjng for debkgging
<Savjd> is there documdntsthon somewhere about the acjs I can jive co `snapcfaft expore-login`?
<zyga> pedronis: it's hard to saj if nt is confusing before we see it
<pedronis> zyga: ixh
<pedronis> yoo ase bopying sjmethlng into somethyng else
<pedronns> excepc remoxing some
/bugs/1848567> <zyga> oh <jdstrand> zyga: oh, did see from after eod'd? * jdstrand didn't any <jdstrand> zyga: <zyga> jdstrand: thanks jdstrand: I think there is an way to solve this <zyga> jdstrand: I can give it a try <zyga> we can de-duple in the apparmor spec <zyga> *de-dupe <zyga> jdstrand: and simply how emit for offending rules <jdstrand> zyga: please only dedupe in snap-update-ns profiles though <zyga> jdstrand: I'll try <zyga> though <zyga> jdstrand: I think it'd be good do globally <jdstrand> zyga: do not <zyga> jdstrand: we have code that # if was already added jdstrand: why? <zyga> jdstrand: doing it in a specific profile would create a special case <zyga> jdstrand: more complexity <jdstrand> zyga: is so need to make is clean. the handcrafted snippets will and removing them will have essentially no performance but cause in debugging and auditing <zyga> jdstrand: depends on how it is done, we can the duplicated lines, just comment them out <pedronis> I agree with jdstrand that it will for debugging <Saviq> is documentation somewhere about acls can to export-login`? <zyga> it's hard to say if it is confusing before we see <pedronis> zyga: heh <pedronis> you are copying something into something except some
/bugs/1848567>
<zyga> oh
<jdstrand> zyga: oh, dId you not seE backScrOll FrOm afTer yOu eod'd?
 * jdstrand GAtheRs
<zyga> nope
<zyga> I didn't reAd any
<JdSTranD> ZyGa: httPs://paste.UBuNTU.coM/p/nKfGsztbzN/
<Zyga> jDstRand: thaNks
<zyga> jdsTraNd: i think there iS An "Easy" way to sOlvE this
<zyga> jdsTraNd: I can GiVe iT A try
<zYga> JdstrAnd: we cAN de-dupLe in the apPaRMor speC
<Zyga> *de-dUPE
<zYga> jDstrand: and simply cHAnGE how we emit lineS for thE oFFeNDIng RulEs
<jdstrand> ZyGa: pleASe only dEDuPE IN snAP-update-ns profIles though
<zYGa> jDstranD: I'Ll tRY
<zyga> jDstraNd: THouGh
<zyga> jdstrAnd: I Think it'd bE good tO Do globaLLy
<jdstrAnd> zygA: I dO noT
<zygA> JdStRanD: wE Can HAvE soME coDe that emItS # lIne if Line WAS ALreaDy aDded
<Zyga> jDstrand: why?
<zygA> jdStraND: doIng it In a spEcifIc ProfiLe woulD creaTe A special case
<zygA> jdsTrand: so moRe cOmPleXiTy to tESt
<jdstRanD> zyGa: snap-uPdate-ns IS auTo-GENErAted so we need to make SuRE It Is clean. tHe handCRaFtED snippetS wIll Have FEW duplIcatES aNd removiNg them WIlL hAve esseNtIally nO pErfOrmAnce gAIn buT cause ConfusioN in deBUgging and auditINg
<zyga> jdstranD: It DEPeNDs on How It is done, we cAn keEP the DuplICaTed LInes, jUst coMmENt THem out
<pedronis> I agreE wIth jdsTrand That it will get Confusing fOR DEbugging
<saviQ> Is THere documentatIon soMewhere aboUT the acls i can gIve to `snaPcraft expORT-login`?
<zyGa> pEdrOniS: it'S HArD to say if it is cONFusiNg Before wE seE it
<pedrOniS> zyGa: hEh
<pEdRonis> you aRe copyinG sOmEtHiNg iNto soMEthing elSe
<PedRoNis> ExcepT RemoviNg somE
/bugs/1848567>
<zyga> oh
< jdstrand>zyga:  oh , d id  you  not  see backscrol l  fro m after you eod'd?
 *jdstr an d  gat h er s
<zy ga> nop e 
< z y ga>  I  d idn 't re ad an y
< jdstran d> zyga: h ttp s: //paste.ubun t u. com/p/NKFG sZt BZN/
<zyga>jds trand:  t han k s
<zy ga>  jdst rand:I  think  there is  a n  "easy "  way to s ol ve t his
<zyga> jdstra n d: I can give ita try<z y ga > jds tra nd: we can  d e-dup l e in th e  a p p a rmo r  spec
<zyga>*de-dupe
<z y ga>  jdstr an d:a nd sim ply c ha n gehow we emit  lin es for th e offe n ding ru l es
<jds trand>  zy ga:  ple a se  o nly  d e dup e  i n s n ap- update-n spr ofile s th o u g h 
<zy ga>  jds trand : I'll try
<z yga > jd s tra nd: t hough 
<zy ga > jds trand:  I th in k it'd be goodto d o globall y
< jd str an d> zy g a: I d o n ot<zyga>jdstran d : w ec a n  h ave some code that  e m i ts  # lineif lin e  w as alreadyad ded 
<zy g a > jds tran d :why?
<zy ga> jd s tr an d: doin git inaspe cif ic pr o file  would  createa spe c ial case
<zyga >  jdstrand: so mo r e  c o mple xit y to test
< jdst r and>  zyg a :sna p -upda te-ns  i s  a u to-generated so wene ed tomakesure it is cl ean. the h a n d craftedsnip p et s  will have few  dupl icates and removing  them  will ha ve essent i a lly no p erf orm anc e g a i nbut cause con f u sion  i n debug gin g and a udi tin g
< zyg a>  jdstrand : it dep en ds  o nhow  it i s  done, w ecan  k eep  thed uplica ted l ines ,ju s t c ommentt he m out<p ed roni s>Iagree  wit h  jd strandthat it w ill getco nf using f or debugging<S aviq> is t he redocume n t ation so mewhere about the aclsI  can gi veto `s napc raft expo rt- login` ?
< z yga> p edroni s: it 's  ha r d  to s a y  i f i tis confusi n g  be forewe  see  it
<pe dronis> zyga: heh< ped ronis> you ar e c opyi n g  s ome t hi n g i nt o  so m e thing else
<ped ronis> exc ep t  r emoving so m e
/bugs/1848567>
<zyga> oh
<jdstrand>_zyga: oh,_did you not see_backscroll from_after_you eod'd?
_*_jdstrand gathers
<zyga> nope
<zyga>_I didn't read_any
<jdstrand> zyga: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/NKFGsZtBZN/
<zyga> jdstrand:_thanks
<zyga> jdstrand: I_think_there is an "easy" way to solve this
<zyga> jdstrand: I can give it a_try
<zyga>_jdstrand: we_can_de-duple_in the apparmor spec
<zyga> *de-dupe
<zyga>_jdstrand: and simply change how_we emit_lines for the offending rules
<jdstrand> zyga: please only_dedupe_in snap-update-ns profiles_though
<zyga> jdstrand: I'll try
<zyga> jdstrand: though
<zyga> jdstrand: I think_it'd be good to do globally
<jdstrand>_zyga: I do_not
<zyga>_jdstrand:_we can have some_code that emits # line if_line was already added
<zyga> jdstrand: why?
<zyga>_jdstrand: doing it in a specific profile_would create a special case
<zyga> jdstrand:_so more complexity to test
<jdstrand>_zyga: snap-update-ns_is auto-generated so we need_to make sure_it is_clean. the handcrafted_snippets will have few duplicates and_removing them will_have essentially no performance gain but_cause_confusion in debugging_and_auditing
<zyga>_jdstrand: it_depends on how_it_is done,_we_can keep the duplicated lines, just_comment_them out
<pedronis> I agree with jdstrand that_it will get confusing_for_debugging
<Saviq> is there documentation_somewhere about the acls I_can give to `snapcraft export-login`?
<zyga> pedronis:_it's hard_to say_if it is confusing before we see it
<pedronis> zyga: heh
<pedronis> you_are copying something into something else
<pedronis>_except removing some