On 06/17/2018 05:56 AM, Vincas Dargis wrote:
> On 6/15/18 8:05 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 06/15/2018 09:36 AM, Vincas Dargis wrote:
>>> On 6/14/18 10:22 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
Your idea about apparmor/2.13,
apparmor/2.12 is interesting. I suspect there will be some duplication
On 6/15/18 8:05 PM, John Johansen wrote:
On 06/15/2018 09:36 AM, Vincas Dargis wrote:
On 6/14/18 10:22 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
Your idea about apparmor/2.13,
apparmor/2.12 is interesting. I suspect there will be some duplication
there too, but I'm not terribly about it.
Yes there will be
On 06/15/2018 09:36 AM, Vincas Dargis wrote:
> On 6/14/18 10:22 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> Your idea about apparmor/2.13,
>> apparmor/2.12 is interesting. I suspect there will be some duplication
>> there too, but I'm not terribly about it.
>
> Yes there will be duplication for the packages
On 6/14/18 10:22 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
Your idea about apparmor/2.13,
apparmor/2.12 is interesting. I suspect there will be some duplication
there too, but I'm not terribly about it.
Yes there will be duplication for the packages that ships updates in
stable versions (like Thunderbird
Top posting since this email is quite long. Yes, Seth is right, the
idea was that distros would have their own top-level directory and
iterate as desired.
Without going into the whole story, OpenSUSE didn't use the apparmor-
profiles repo because they preferred to work with profiles/apparmor.d
On 6/11/18 10:18 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:38:48PM +0300, Vincas Dargis wrote:
profiles or should it backport it's rules inline? If it would be known that
Ubuntu 18.10 will not have AppArmor 4.13, what if someone from OpenSUSE
Tumbleweed would like to introduce new
[Sorry Vincas, I accidentally sent my first message directly to you
rather than the list.]
On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:38:48PM +0300, Vincas Dargis wrote:
> profiles or should it backport it's rules inline? If it would be known that
> Ubuntu 18.10 will not have AppArmor 4.13, what if someone from
Hi,
I would like to suggest to change how apparmor-profiles [0] repository
structure looks, how versioning works.
Currently, we have ubuntu/18.10 directory [1] for the latest profile
versions, but this naming/versioning scheme is not
informative/transparent or useful enough.
Ubuntu 18.10
