Felipe Sateler wrote (24 Jun 2016 13:38:17 GMT) :
> On 24 Jun 2016 5:00 a.m., "intrigeri" wrote:
>> Felipe Sateler wrote (06 Jun 2016 23:49:46 GMT) :
>> > Also, apparmor init script is not stopped on shutdown (and thus I did
>> > not add a Conflicts on shutdown.target), you might want to consider
On 24 Jun 2016 5:00 a.m., "intrigeri" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Felipe Sateler wrote (06 Jun 2016 23:49:46 GMT) :
> > Please find attached a unit that wraps the currently existing init
> > script.
>
> Thanks! I've integrated something along these lines and expect I'll
> upload today.
Cool, thanks!
> >
Hi,
Felipe Sateler wrote (06 Jun 2016 23:49:46 GMT) :
> Please find attached a unit that wraps the currently existing init
> script.
Thanks! I've integrated something along these lines and expect I'll
upload today.
> Proper integration (which I understand is being worked on) can
> be added later
Hi,
thanks a lot for this review!
Felix Geyer wrote (26 Aug 2015 18:00:16 GMT) :
> On 26.08.2015 17:45, intrigeri wrote:
>> here are my initial notes and (incomplete) drafts, partly inspired by
>> OpenSuSe's unit.
>> sys-kernel-security.mount
>> =
[...]
> systemd mounts s
Christian Boltz wrote (15 Jun 2016 11:38:10 GMT) :
> You might also want to look at the openSUSE apparmor.service. [...]
Sure: see message 10 and follow-ups on this very bug report :)
Hi,
Andreas Henriksson wrote (09 Jun 2016 13:54:49 GMT) :
> Would be nice to see this bug report resolved quite soon!
Right. Thanks for the great systemd integration work you folks are
doing. I don't want AppArmor to block this work too much.
Thanks Felipe for the patch!
> Please tell me if ther
Hello Seth Arnold.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:03:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
[...]
> Is there a strong enough reason to ship the wrapping-the-sysv .service
> file? That feels like an odd step to take.
Apart from the reasons already mentioned by Felipe we're getting close
to eliminating the fin
On 6 June 2016 at 20:03, Seth Arnold wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:49:46PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 patch
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:04:38 -0300 fsate...@debian.org wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Your package apparmor has an initscript that is enabled in runlevel
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:49:46PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Control: tags -1 patch
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:04:38 -0300 fsate...@debian.org wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Your package apparmor has an initscript that is enabled in runlevel
> > S, but it does not provide a corresponding systemd serv
Control: tags -1 patch
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:04:38 -0300 fsate...@debian.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Your package apparmor has an initscript that is enabled in runlevel
> S, but it does not provide a corresponding systemd service unit.
Please find attached a unit that wraps the currently existing init
Hi,
FYI I can't commit to work on this again any time soon.
Seth recently posted on this topic elsewhere:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/apparmor/+bug/1503762/comments/2
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 08:00:16PM +0200, Felix Geyer wrote:
> > [Service]
> > Type=oneshot
> > ExecStart=XXX
> > ExecReload=XXX
> > ExecRestart=XXX
> > ExecStop=XXX
>
> There is no ExecRestart, systemd translates restart to stop/start.
> That makes it a bit challenging to have a well-defined relo
Hi,
On 26.08.2015 17:45, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here are my initial notes and (incomplete) drafts, partly inspired by
> OpenSuSe's unit. I think we'll need at least two units. That's kind of
> blocked by the ongoing discussion on /usr and click-specific
> bits, though.
>
> sys-kernel-securit
Hi,
here are my initial notes and (incomplete) drafts, partly inspired by
OpenSuSe's unit. I think we'll need at least two units. That's kind of
blocked by the ongoing discussion on /usr and click-specific
bits, though.
sys-kernel-security.mount
=
[Unit]
Description=Secur
14 matches
Mail list logo
