On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 15:01, Daniel Vrátil <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This shouldn't be done in a bugfix release > > Sorry about this, I had no idea this change would affect Apparmor. This > was a > bugfix for MacOS where the socket path was simply too long. > > At the same time, you cannot assume all maintainers know about all such > 3rd > party software and know what changes might or might not affect it. Maybe > if > the Apparmor config file for Akonadi was in the Akonadi repo and I knew > about > it, it would hit a bell in my head while doing the codereview for this > change. > But this way, even if I knew Apparmor would be affected by this change, I > have > no clue where to look for...whatever I have to look for in order to do or > ask > for the adjustments. > > IMO since this is something you do in your packaging and is outside of > upstream control, it's something you should check before pushing the > package > to your users, not blaming upstream for breaking your distro "patches". > Fair points, sorry I sounded blaming. Any other distros out there use an apparmour profile? Can we get it upstream into akonadi directly? https://packaging.neon.kde.org/kde/akonadi.git/tree/debian/usr.sbin.mysqld-akonadi?h=Neon/release-lts Jonathan
