Bug#440680: ITP: apparmor -- application security framework
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Michael Holzt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: apparmor Version : 2.0.2 Upstream Author : Novell/SuSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://en.opensuse.org/Apparmor * License : GPL Description : application security framework AppArmor is an application security tool designed to provide an easy-to-use security framework for your applications. AppArmor proactively protects the operating system and applications from external or internal threats, even zero-day attacks, by enforcing good behavior and preventing even unknown application flaws from being exploited. AppArmor security policies, called "profiles", completely define what system resources individual applications can access, and with what privileges. A number of default profiles are included with AppArmor, and using a combination of advanced static analysis and learning-based tools, AppArmor profiles for even very complex applications can be deployed successfully in a matter of hours. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-nu Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd
> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers > apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their > packages a dependency on update-inetd. Are you asking for a flamewar? I really don't see any justification for beeing attacked by you in such a way. The fact is simple: I don't read this list (lack of time and lack of interest in flamepostings like yours), therefore i do not know about any "discussions on this list" and therefore i didn't know that i did wrong. So its an affront to accuse me of ignoring a discussion. Get yourself some manners. In fact i replaced the dependency on inetd with a dependency on update-inetd some time ago because i felt this to be right we. I even checked with the inetd-maintainer. My package needs the update-inetd binary and depending on update-inetd surely seemed the right way because my impression was that update-inetd would be the new package to depend on when one needs update-ineted. If you want to fix the situation, try to write a nicely worded advice what to do. If you only want to spread flames, then f... off. I'm now really pissed by our flame attempt, because i haven't done wrong really. Regards Michael -- It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
