Bug#754730: [lintian] packages should not depend on AppArmor
tags 754730 + moreinfo thanks Hi intrigeri, > I think it's preferable to wait until a decision is made for Buster > wrt. AppArmor though: if we decide to [..] Indeed, second the enthusiasm! For the time being, I'm going to mark this as "moreinfo"; it's not the perfect tag but it at least captures the idea — from a triage point of view — that we cannot move forward with implementing it just yet. Thanks again. :) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#754730: [lintian] packages should not depend on AppArmor
Nicolas Braud-Santoni: > Lamby, could you confirm whether we only need someone to write the patch? Thanks for your enthusiasm :) I think it's preferable to wait until a decision is made for Buster wrt. AppArmor though: if we decide to ship this LSM enabled by default via kernel configuration (as is currently the case in testing/sid as per proposed experiment), then #702030 becomes moot and in turn this Lintian feature request becomes moot as well. Cheers, -- intrigeri
Bug#754730: [lintian] packages should not depend on AppArmor
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:35:57PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote (12 May 2016 13:21:23 GMT) : > > Is it really necessary to wait for a policy decision? > > I might have over-interpreted Bastien's request for a bug against > policy: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=754730#22 > > IMO we should get something working, and then we can encode it into > the policy, so my answer would be: no :) Lamby, could you confirm whether we only need someone to write the patch? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#754730: [lintian] packages should not depend on AppArmor
Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote (12 May 2016 13:21:23 GMT) : > What's the status on this? No progress recently, apart of some recent discussion on #702030, that this bug is blocking (technically). > Is it really necessary to wait for a policy decision? I might have over-interpreted Bastien's request for a bug against policy: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=754730#22 IMO we should get something working, and then we can encode it into the policy, so my answer would be: no :) Cheers, -- intrigeri
Bug#754730: [lintian] packages should not depend on AppArmor
X-Debbugs-CC: Bastien Roucaries What's the status on this? Is it really necessary to wait for a policy decision? signature.asc Description: PGP signature