-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dwight,
thanks for the answer. On 03.02.2015 Dwight Engen wrote: > Yes, for example a program that just uses the lxc API should only > need the lxc-libs package. But is it worth it? Both of the resulting rpms are like 200KB. Does not seem like a waste of space. Unless there are security implications? And out of curiosity: Which are these programs that only use the API? > Not sure how well this is actually split up right now though given > that things like the startup scripts, lxc-monitor, etc... are in > the main package. It would be really good if someone knowledgeable (i.e. not me) took a look and sorted out which file goes into which package. > I think these apparmor additions to the upstream .spec should > continue to be behind %if suse_version since they doesn't make > sense in the Fedora derived distros :) Are they not using apparmor? (Selinux on Fedora does ring a bell, but I am too tired to remember... ;-) ) Regards, Johannes - -- Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. (unknown) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with SeaMonkey - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlTRPVIACgkQzi3gQ/xETbJkVACfVuti5FPe9a6Fbd/D8+2IyBLQ pLYAn0oRMEkdzACPqmX/ba9KsA4pFfkz =G9/4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
