Le mercredi 13 février 2019 à 18:40:53-0200, Antonio Terceiro a écrit : > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:18:40PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le 13 février 2019 20:09:33 GMT+01:00, Andreas Beckmann <a...@debian.org> a > > écrit : > > >Control: reassign -1 lxc,apparmor > > >Control: found -1 lxc/1:3.1.0+really3.0.3-2 > > >Control: found -1 apparmor/2.13.2-7 > > >Control: retitle -1 lxc,apparmor: lxc fails to install in a chroot with > > >apparmor installed > > > > > >On 2019-02-10 20:06, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > >> I can reproduce this on a clean chroot (but not on a clean VM) > > > > > >I can also reproduce this in piuparts by testing lxc with > > >--fake-essential-packages=apparmor (neither lava nor > > >--install-recommends needed) > > > > > >> + apparmor_parser -r -W -T /etc/apparmor.d/lxc-containers > > >> Warning: unable to find a suitable fs in /proc/mounts, is it mounted? > > >> Use --subdomainfs to override. > > >> dpkg: error processing package lxc (--configure): > > >> installed lxc package post-installation script subprocess returned > > >error exit status 1 > > > > > >So this is either an lxc or apparmor issue. > > > > > > > > >Andreas > > > > See my staged commits. > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lxc-team/lxc/commit/a0e6b5f26227236e44ab8ff4cee745228201bb7d > > weirdy, if you first install apparmor, then install lxc in a separate > apt invocaation, it works just fine. and, if you do `apt install -f` > after the initial failure, it also works fine.
I think it's a matter of AppArmor doing some magic at the end via a trigger. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
