[permissions] Update README to clarify which apps are sandboxed. Fixes JB#58455

[llewelld]

The README suggested there was a plan to sandbox all apps by the Sailfish OS 4.4.0 release. In practice, this meant that all apps without permissions specified would be given a default profile from 4.4.0 onwards.

Since this is now the case, this change updates the README to reflect the current situation.

Fixes #126.

[Olf0]

… Worth creating a task regarding Sharing permission and adjust some parts of the text. Sharing permission itself is internal while at the same being part of the Base permission. This implies that each sandboxed application will automatically gain Sharing permission as each app has base permissions.

May I suggest not to add additional text somewhere, but fill out the empty field for the Sharing permission in the table of "internal permissions", as suggested in the side note of the original report of issue #127.

[rainemak]

… Worth creating a task regarding Sharing permission and adjust some parts of the text. Sharing permission itself is internal while at the same being part of the Base permission. This implies that each sandboxed application will automatically gain Sharing permission as each app has base permissions.

May I suggest not to add additional text somewhere, but fill out the empty field for the Sharing permission in then table of "internal permissions", as suggested in the side note of the original report at issue #127.

You're failing to understand different aspect of this. What is allowed in Harbour is not everything and all should documented. I do understand that everything is not perfectly documented but we're working it. Sharing is implicitly allowed. Thus, should be documented as well.

[Olf0]

May I suggest not to add additional text somewhere, but fill out the empty field for the Sharing permission in then table of "internal permissions", as suggested in the side note of the original report at issue #127.

You're failing to understand different aspect of this.

Do I? Which one(s) are you thinking of?

What is allowed in Harbour is not everything and all should documented.

While this is certainly true (I agree very much to both parts of your statement), this sentence does not make much sense here IMO. Especially as this issue, this discussion and the whole Sailjail permission system are unrelated to the Jolla Store ("Harbour") AFAIU. Or am I missing something, why you are bringing up "Harbour" here?

I do understand that everything is not perfectly documented but we're working it. Sharing is implicitly allowed. Thus, should be documented as well.

I fully concur and have not stated anything contradicting. But as you are explicitly replying to my suggestion to use the empty description field of the Sharing permission in the table "internal permissions" for documenting it (instead of text somewhere else), it appears to me that you intend to contradict, but are unable to see a contradicting argument.

[llewelld]

Rebased.

[llewelld]

Thanks for all of the input. I've created a separate task related to the Sharing permission text. I'll try to take what you've said on board, but once there are some PRs related to it I'll post the links here and then I suggest it might be easiest to continue the conversation there.

[llewelld]

I'm not sure whether I covered everything, but I've proposed some text about the Sharing permission and would welcome your comments: https://github.com/sailfishos/sailjail-permissions/pull/129