Hi, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote (05 Jun 2014 09:32:52 GMT) : > It'd help if the original reporter could state its expectations.
I agree. tl;dr: dropping this profile from the lightdm package would address *my* expectations just fine, ease the work to improve Debian's AppArmor support, and make Debian+AppArmor user experience smoother. Please do it, or ask for a patch. Thanks :) As someone working on improving AppArmor support in Debian, my personal expectation wrt. this bug is to avoid creating the situation where Debian users, who dared enabling AppArmor, are used to more or less always see the `apparmor' service in failed state, because oh well, there's always something that doesn't parse somewhere, but nothing particularly critical. Because when "broken state" is the norm, then it's hard to notice when there's a real problem. And then, users (including me!) can't be bothered to look at what failed to parse, let alone to file bug reports, and then we release with bugs. To avoid that the case at hand contributes to creating the painful situation I've described above, we should either hack the profile so that it parses fine (gave it a try today, doesn't seem trivial, not worth the effort), or drop it. If the information I read is correct, this profile brings absolutely no security improvement, so I suggest to simply stop shipping it. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
