Hi John & others!
Thanks a lot for all this useful input! I think there's some
misunderstanding going on about one of my test procedures though, see
below. I also did some more tests which increased my confidence in the
whole idea, so I'm going to upload 2.11.1-1 now.
John Johansen:
> On
On 10/23/2017 10:30 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (John, there's a question for you below and I'll like you to
> double-check my testing procedure :)
>
> intrigeri:
>>> 1. in testing/sid, ship a conffile (in a package built from
>>>src:apparmor) that pins the most recent feature set fully
Hi,
(John, there's a question for you below and I'll like you to
double-check my testing procedure :)
intrigeri:
>> 1. in testing/sid, ship a conffile (in a package built from
>>src:apparmor) that pins the most recent feature set fully supported
>>by our policy, i.e. Linux 4.12's or
intrig...@debian.org:
> Package: apparmor
> Version: 2.11.0-11
> Severity: important
> My plan is:
> 1. in testing/sid, ship a conffile (in a package built from
>src:apparmor) that pins the most recent feature set fully supported
>by our policy, i.e. Linux 4.12's or 4.13's (depending on
Package: apparmor
Version: 2.11.0-11
Severity: important
My plan is:
1. in testing/sid, ship a conffile (in a package built from
src:apparmor) that pins the most recent feature set fully supported
by our policy, i.e. Linux 4.12's or 4.13's (depending on whether
we've fixed all the
5 matches
Mail list logo
