Package: libreoffice
Version: 1:5.4.3-2
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
start libreoffice with
soffice -env:UserInstallation=file:///tmp/test
always works
start libreoffice with
soffice -env:UserInstallation=file:///srv/home/michael/tmp/
does not work. Home folder is srv/home/michael
1. S
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 02:33:20PM +0100, Michael Ott wrote:
> Package: libreoffice
> Version: 1:5.4.3-2
> Severity: important
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> start libreoffice with
> soffice -env:UserInstallation=file:///tmp/test
> always works
>
> start libreoffice with
> soffice -env:UserInstallatio
Hi,
(context for pkg-apparmor folks: the last upload of libreoffice to
sid disabled the AppArmor profile by default due to #882597)
Rene Engelhard:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 02:33:20PM +0100, Michael Ott wrote:
>> start libreoffice with
>> soffice -env:UserInstallation=file:///srv/home/michael/tm
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:19:05AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> (context for pkg-apparmor folks: the last upload of libreoffice to
> sid disabled the AppArmor profile by default due to #882597)
>
> Rene Engelhard:
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 02:33:20PM +0100, Michael Ott wrote:
> >> start libreo
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:31:18AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > built time, you can either use aa-complain or manually patch the
>
> That's what I didn't want. Didn't want to stick manual aa-* calls into
> the postinst
Ah, I see what you mean.
NAME
aa-complain - set an AppArmor securi
Hi,
Meta: these bits should not be needed once I've implemented my
proposal, but regardless, I think it's worth spreading AppArmor
knowledge in Debian :)
Rene Engelhard:
> so aa-complain soffice.bin -d $(PKGDIR)-common/etc/apparmor.d/
Yes, this should work.
> etc? (Maybe with full path?)
If th
Hi Vincas,
Vincas Dargis:
> It's the same story as with Thunderbird's #882218, we really should think
> about
> adding customization points to these GUI applications.
Sure, on the long term allowing advanced users to add drop-in snippets
instead of having to edit conffiles would be great; I'm gl
On 2017-11-28 12:19, intrigeri wrote:
→ In this case, I would argue that we're talking about a corner
case, that only rather advanced users will hit, and I find it sad
that everyone else can't benefit from AppArmor security benefits
due to that, so I'm leaning towards:
Hi Rene,
(sorry for the delay, I was focusing on other issues that felt higher
priority than this one, since I've already workaround'ed the
problem successfully.)
Rene Engelhard:
>> that everyone else can't benefit from AppArmor security benefits
>> due to that, so I'm leaning towards:
>>
intrigeri:
> Rene Engelhard:
>>> that everyone else can't benefit from AppArmor security benefits
>>> due to that, so I'm leaning towards:
>>>
>>> 1. keep the AppArmor profile enforced by default, so the vast
>>> majority of users benefit from it;
>>> 2. ensure the App
10 matches
Mail list logo