On 2017.09.30 08:27, intrigeri wrote:
Interestingly http://wiki.apparmor.net/index.php/AppArmor_Core_Policy_Reference#Execute_rules says that Pux is supported since 2.5, so I wonder who's correct.
I've grep'ed through upstream apparmor-profiles repository too, there is no single `Pux` usage. There is hint in some unit test in apparmor repo: ``` utils/test/test-parser-simple-tests.py:36: # Pux and Cux (which actually mean PUx and CUx) get rejected by the tools ``` Interestingly, apparmor_parser itself does not provide any warnings.
Replacing Pux with pux fixes the problem you've seen here, and better expresses what I intended initially. Can you please confirm? If that works, would you be up to update my merge request upstream accordingly: https://code.launchpad.net/~intrigeri/apparmor-profiles/+git/apparmor-profiles/+merge/331058
Yes, using `pux` fixes the issue. Not sure what updating mere request means. Should I simply create new MR with alternative `pux`?
… and then propose a branch forked off current Vcs-Git on the Debian side?
Sorry I do not follow, how do I propose branch for Debian?
