Comment 4 for bug 1435452

Thanks Steve.

Yes - I was thinking about something like a .apparmor file that tells dh_apparmor what it needs.

Without the dh sequencer, we're requiring two things:

1) For the packager to understand *where* to put the override
2) For the packager to specify information needed by dh_apparmor (the profile name)

Traditionally the dh sequencer eliminates the first, and the maintainer supplies the second via <package>.<dh_name> files.

Consider that if every dh_ helper worked in this current way, we'd be back to not having a dh sequencer.

For backwards compatiblity, how about falling back to the old behaviour on some combination of --profile-name and --manifest not being specified and the .apparmor file not being present?

And while we're talking of changing things, how about arranging it so that adding the profile to the .install file for dh_install is also not required? An example is dh_installinit - we don't install the init.d file and then give it to dh_installinit; it does the whole thing. Though that does get implied by "install" in the name. Maybe we should have dh_installapparmor which combines the two operations, and retain dh_apparmor for backwards compatibility and eventual deprecation?