On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 11:01 +0100, Carsten Brandt wrote: > 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. Thanks for that confirmation. LXD is now available in unstable for a couple months, so if you encounter any other issues please file a bug or fix it directly in the salsa repo. Mathias
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part