Hi, Vincas Dargis: > 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.
Thanks to everyone who helped clarifying this matter :) >> 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. Great! > Not sure what updating mere request means. Should I simply create new MR with > alternative `pux`? Yes: fork a branch based on mine, add a commit with this change and an suitable justification, create a new MR and add a note on mine to say it's obsoleted by yours (I'll close it). >> … 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? Fork the repo somewhere, push your branch there, and point to it from this bug report (with a "Control: tag -1 + patch" pseudo-header). Please ensure you update debian/README.Debian accordingly so it points to the correct upstream MR :) Cheers, -- intrigeri