[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packaging feedback/review for LXD



Hi Mathias,

Am 16.06.22 um 01:54 schrieb Mathias Gibbens:
after installing apparmor  (apt install apparmor) everything works
fine.

Should apparmor be added as a dependency to the lxd package?

   That is interesting -- I've opened a bug with the upstream developers
(https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/10560) with some additional details
as I was able to reproduce the issue as well.

   Regarding making apparmor a dependency for LXD, it is currently
recommended in d/control, which I think is correct, based on my reading
of Policy Chapter 7.2. Upstream does state that apparmor is an optional
feature of LXD, which is why I listed it as a Recommends, and not a
Depends. If there's consensus that the LXD package should depend on
apparmor, that's an easy enough change to make.


I am currently running LXD without apparmor so it should definitively not be a dependency and the current listing as recommended seems correct.

Viele Grüße,

Carsten Brandt

--
cebe.cloud - Carsten Brandt

cb@cebe.cloud
https://cebe.cloud/

Tel.: +49 5181 284 998 51

cebe Internet GmbH
Leinstr. 3
31061 Alfeld (Leine)
Germany

Geschäftsführer: Carsten Brandt
Registriergericht: Amtsgericht Hildesheim
Registernummer: HRB 20 59 19


Reply to: