On 02.12.2017 14:11, solitone wrote: > On 01/12/17 22:59, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: >> On 01.12.2017 22:19, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> >>> I think it might be useful to open a (wishlist) bug report against the >>> linux package to not add the recommends when building for >>> stretch-backports >>> >> Isn't AppArmor required in buster and also required in >> stretch-backports linux-image? Of course AppArmor can be disabled >> completely or partially if profile for some application is broken, >> but it is not just recommended package now. > > Yes, if I'm pretty sure it wasn't just recommended, but it was > required--if I remember right I had no choice. > Now, when I hit this buggy profile problem, I'm thinking about how to deal with these problems in the future for other applications. After consulting AppArmor manual I have not found any reference about how to override AppArmor profile. All profiles are placed in "/etc/apparmor.d/" and that is it, so the only options are either disable misbehaving AppArmor profile or modify it which is bad option because this is package shipped profile. For an example, systemd unit-files could be easily overridden without resorting to modification of package shipped unit-files. I this possible for AppArmor?
-- With kindest regards, Alexander. ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
