On 09.05.2016 21:00, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Stefan Bader wrote (20 May 2015 10:11:45 GMT) :
>> intrigeri wrote (15 Jun 2015 15:09:11 GMT) :
>> My (possibly incomplete) records say that I've tested the latest
>> proposed patch set back in February (<85iof8v6j5@boum.org>).
>
>>> Since I
Hi,
> Stefan Bader wrote (20 May 2015 10:11:45 GMT) :
> intrigeri wrote (15 Jun 2015 15:09:11 GMT) :
> My (possibly incomplete) records say that I've tested the latest
> proposed patch set back in February (<85iof8v6j5@boum.org>).
>> Since I lost most context by now, I will try to find my
Hi,
Stefan Bader wrote (20 May 2015 10:11:45 GMT) :
Hm was there not something which I was waiting for feedback
from you?
My (possibly incomplete) records say that I've tested the latest
proposed patch set back in February (85iof8v6j5@boum.org).
Since I lost most context by now, I will
On 19.05.2015 11:54, intrigeri wrote:
Hi Stefan,
any news on what follows? Now that Ubuntu 15.04 has been released,
perhaps you'll be able to allocate some cycles to it? :)
Hm was there not something which I was waiting for feedback from you? Though I
forgot what exactly that was. And after
Hi Stefan,
any news on what follows? Now that Ubuntu 15.04 has been released,
perhaps you'll be able to allocate some cycles to it? :)
intrigeri wrote (11 Feb 2015 14:58:54 GMT) :
Hi Stefan and others,
Stefan Bader wrote (21 Oct 2014 11:50:24 GMT) :
On 20.10.2014 12:48, Stefan Bader wrote:
Hi Stefan and others,
Stefan Bader wrote (21 Oct 2014 11:50:24 GMT) :
On 20.10.2014 12:48, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 19.10.2014 17:07, intrigeri wrote:
Cool, I've tested this. I've imported these two patches in Debian's
1.2.9-3 quilt series, made the build system use dh-autoreconf (the
build
On 20.10.2014 12:48, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 19.10.2014 17:07, intrigeri wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Bader wrote (19 Oct 2014 11:07:40 GMT) :
Yeah, I actually did but it felt a bit hackish but then I am told anything
looks
a bit hackish when it involves autoconf. These are again against
On 19.10.2014 17:07, intrigeri wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Bader wrote (19 Oct 2014 11:07:40 GMT) :
Yeah, I actually did but it felt a bit hackish but then I am told anything
looks
a bit hackish when it involves autoconf. These are again against upstream
libvirt mostly because the last touch
On 18.10.2014 23:12, intrigeri wrote:
Hi,
Daniel P. Berrange wrote (01 Oct 2014 14:54:43 GMT) :
Agreed, the libvirt upstream distributed file should do version checks
based on official apparmor releases, and distros can tweak versions if
they have backported features.
So, it seems that
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Bader wrote (19 Oct 2014 11:07:40 GMT) :
Yeah, I actually did but it felt a bit hackish but then I am told anything
looks
a bit hackish when it involves autoconf. These are again against upstream
libvirt mostly because the last touch timestamps always clash otherwise.
Hi,
Daniel P. Berrange wrote (01 Oct 2014 14:54:43 GMT) :
Agreed, the libvirt upstream distributed file should do version checks
based on official apparmor releases, and distros can tweak versions if
they have backported features.
So, it seems that we've reached a consensus that adding
Hi,
Daniel P. Berrange wrote (01 Oct 2014 09:04:09 GMT) :
I think it would be pretty reasonable to rename the files in have '.in'
suffixes, and then have a build script that expands 'if APPARMOR_VERSION'
conditionals to generate the final file.
I agree it's the way to go, to avoid that each
This had been on the Debian package list before but its time to take
this onwards. So the goal would be to have one set to rule them all
(when using apparmor) and drop the seperate set of definitions which
exist at least in the Ubuntu packaging.
Right now the patch would be at a state which adds
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:30:58AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
This had been on the Debian package list before but its time to take
this onwards. So the goal would be to have one set to rule them all
(when using apparmor) and drop the seperate set of definitions which
exist at least in the
On 01.10.2014 11:04, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:30:58AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
This had been on the Debian package list before but its time to take
this onwards. So the goal would be to have one set to rule them all
(when using apparmor) and drop the seperate set
Quoting Stefan Bader (stefan.ba...@canonical.com):
On 01.10.2014 11:04, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:30:58AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
This had been on the Debian package list before but its time to take
this onwards. So the goal would be to have one set to rule
On 10/01/2014 04:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:30:58AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
This had been on the Debian package list before but its time to take
this onwards. So the goal would be to have one set to rule them all
(when using apparmor) and drop the seperate
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 09:46:08AM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
On 10/01/2014 04:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:30:58AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
This had been on the Debian package list before but its time to take
this onwards. So the goal would be to have
18 matches
Mail list logo
