Bug#754730: [lintian] packages should not depend on AppArmor

[Chris Lamb]

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

[intrigeri]

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

[Nicolas Braud-Santoni]

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

[intrigeri]

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

[Nicolas Braud-Santoni]

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