New comment by paper42 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/30946#issuecomment-842338740

Comment:
> Not sure if there is any value in renaming the file in upstream rules, they are most likely also either hard code the specific path in the profile or allow patterns.
> Would also break existing `/etc/apparmor.d/local` configuration.

There is not, other than convenience, I will revert this change.

> I'm not sure yet if I prefer a package with our profiles or just shipping the profiles we wrote with the package they are for.
> If we plan to ship one big package then I think it would be better to create a new separate repository instead of maintaining then inside of void-packages.

I am interested in a better solution like what was mentioned in the void-infrastructure issue. I think a separate repository might be a bit better idea, because we might want to modify or create new abstractions. Tracking compatible versions could be done with a simple comment with the version (similar to [krathalan's apparmor profiles for Arch](https://git.sr.ht/~krathalan/apparmor-profiles/tree/master/item/profiles/bluetoothd) and some kind of a warning/notification/lint/CI which would warn when a PR or a commit for a new version is made. There should also be a distinction between well tested profiles and ones that are a bit buggy or not tested enough (which would be a bit ugly with the profiles in packages). This will not be trivial, but I can offer my help when the void maintainers decide on this.