>
> If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into
> a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name
> by adding "-offensive". For example, "cowsay" vs
> "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
> be Suggested by the core packag
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
> > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
^^
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 sug
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 doe
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
# CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY_SELINU
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, 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 don
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 D
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 :(
not "just decided", it was extensively discussed.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
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 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 happened
David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive
packages to -offensive"):
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
> > > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not
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 2017-11-10 23:18:26, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anton Gladky
>
> * Package name: benchmark
> Version : 1.3.0
> * URL : https://github.com/google/benchmark
> * License : Apache-2.0
> Programming Lang: C++
> Description
Hello David,
On Thu, Nov 23 2017, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
>> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
>> > or Depended on, s
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1173 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 147 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reques
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: nq
Version : 0.2.1
Upstream Author : Leah Neukirchen
* URL : https://github.com/chneukirchen/nq
* License : CC0
Programming Lang: C
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: extrace
Version : 0.4
Upstream Author : Leah Neukirchen
* URL : https://github.com/chneukirchen/extrace
* License : BSD
Programming
18 matches
Mail list logo
