Re: question about build profile nocheck

2017-11-01 Thread Chris Lamb
Hi Afif, Wookey already replied with an excellent answer, but surely: > ifeq (,$(findstring nocheck, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > override_dh_auto_test: > commands... > commands... > else > override_dh_auto_test: > endif … is better written as: override_dh_auto_test: ifeq (,$(find

Re: question about build profile nocheck

2017-11-01 Thread Wookey
On 2017-11-01 21:46 -0400, Afif Elghraoui wrote: > Hello, > > The BuildProfileSpec on the wiki [1] defines the `nocheck` profile as: > > > > No test suite should be run, and build dependencies used only for that > purpose should be ignored. Builds that set this profile must also add > `nocheck`

Re: Removing Qt4 in Buster

2017-11-01 Thread Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
On viernes, 27 de octubre de 2017 15:40:25 -03 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:34:14AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez > > Meyer wrote: > >No, we are actively working towards removing Qt4 from the archive > >during the Buster cycle. In this case libressl might help giving

question about build profile nocheck

2017-11-01 Thread Afif Elghraoui
Hello, The BuildProfileSpec on the wiki [1] defines the `nocheck` profile as: > No test suite should be run, and build dependencies used only for that purpose should be ignored. Builds that set this profile must also add `nocheck` to `DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS` ``` I understand this as saying that the

Re: Let's enable AppArmor by default (why not?)

2017-11-01 Thread Philipp Kern
On 11/01/2017 01:24 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > The lack of a useable exception mechanism, with a sensible UI, is a > big problem though. Ideally you would ask the user something like > > This { email attachment | web download } is a DESCRIPTION. The > program for this is NAME but it has not be

Re: Let's enable AppArmor by default (why not?)

2017-11-01 Thread Ian Jackson
Christian Seiler writes ("Re: Let's enable AppArmor by default (why not?)"): > - Or one whitelists certain applications. This will have the >unfortunate side-effect that any time the user installs a piece of >software that isn't on that whitelist (or wants to use their own >wrapper scr

Re: Let's enable AppArmor by default (why not?)

2017-11-01 Thread Philipp Kern
On 10/31/2017 09:52 PM, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:51:34 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: >> I'm not sure if I missed some kind of alert tool like the selinux >> troubleshooting bits, but in my case it just silently failed: > In case you don't know it, apparmor-notify has been helpf