Marking as "Won't Fix". The profiles are shipped as conffiles. If a user
flips a complain-mode only profile to enforce, I think the user should
be expected to understand the question when prompted for a merge. This
is the nature of packaging and the alternative is to make these config
files and mos
Updating profiles is a pain and known problem. The current plans for
dealing with this are two fold. We have been working on a merge tool,
which will allow two and three way profile merging. The tool will
provide both automatic and manual merging of profiles. The other way of
dealing with this
Yes, dealing with config file merges tends to be a bit tricky for lots
of things. This will probably feed into a larger discussion for the
server team in general. I will mark this "wishlist" for now.
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
Status: Needs Info
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:37:57PM -, Kees Cook wrote:
> I think this is "expected behavior". If someone modifies a distro-
> published profile in /etc/apparmor.d, apt should stop and ask them how
> they want to handle it. How do you think this should be handled?
>
I agree with you.
I was t
I think this is "expected behavior". If someone modifies a distro-
published profile in /etc/apparmor.d, apt should stop and ask them how
they want to handle it. How do you think this should be handled?
** Changed in: apparmor (Ubuntu)
Status: Unconfirmed => Needs Info
--
Conflict in p
