Comment 3 for bug 1979879

Initially I was also in favor of changing the apparmor profile instead of the samba packaging, but after I saw Michał's MP (with this approach), I'm kind of changing my mind, and here is my reasoning:

With the change to apparmor, all ubuntu users, regardless if they use samba or not, will get the update. All of them, because even though the change is in the bin:apparmor-profiles pacakge, it comes from src:apparmor, which builds many other apparmor binary packages and some of them are installed by default in ubuntu.

If instead we made the change in the samba packaging, fixing the binary path, then only samba users would get the update. We can still argue whether it's worth an sru, but at least we could stage the update so it goes out with other more important samba updates.

Paride, what do you think?