Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unblock 882436 with 865303
Bug #882436 [libreoffice-core] libreoffice-core: conflicts against (default)
openjdk-8-jre-headless on i386
882436 was blocked by: 877339 869613 876051 877809 870070 880979 876458 865866
865303 876021 869161 869649
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package src:linux
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Setting user to
maximilian attems writes ("Re: recommends for apparmor in newest
linux-image-4.13"):
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:00:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/08/msg00090.html
> > [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/10/threads.html#00086
> >
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:11:02PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 11:18 -0200, Helen Koike wrote:
>[...]
>> I think a Sprint about Secure Boot would be great, we just need to make
>> sure that at least the people who disagree with one approach or the
>> other will be present.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:07:02PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 21:48 -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
>[...]
>> I did a summary about the current discussion here:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot#Wrap-up_of_the_discussions_so_far
>> Feel free to edit this wiki or let me know
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:00:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:18:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
> > linux packages?
>
> This is in response to a discussion that
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:01:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> That's still not an upstream default lsm. Looks like someone in
> Debian just decided to make apparmor the default, which is horrible
> news :(
Hello, Christoph,
do you think you could manage to either point the general -devel
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:59:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 14:58 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:55:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > AppArmor is the default LSM.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a default LSM in Linux.
>
> $ grep
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:55:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> AppArmor is the default LSM.
There is no such thing as a default LSM in Linux.
> > The changelog suggests it was done that systemd units might use it,
> > but in that case those systemd units should depend on apparmor.
>
> They
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:18:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
> linux packages?
This is in response to a discussion that happened on this list. The
thread started in august last year[1], but really picked up
On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 14:58 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:55:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > AppArmor is the default LSM.
>
> There is no such thing as a default LSM in Linux.
$ grep DEFAULT_SECURITY /boot/config-4.13.0-1-amd64
#
On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 14:18 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
> linux packages? apparomor is just one of many security modules, and
> a fairly bogus one to start with. The kernel should not recommend it
> as it
Hi all,
is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
linux packages? apparomor is just one of many security modules, and
a fairly bogus one to start with. The kernel should not recommend it
as it doesn't add at all to the expected kernel functionality.
The changelog
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 879764 by 867358
Bug #879764 [src:golang-1.9] golang-1.9: enable mips, mips64el and mipsel
879764 was not blocked by any bugs.
879764 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 879764: 867358
> tags 879764 patch
Bug #879764
14 matches
Mail list logo
