John Johansen wrote (02 Jul 2012 07:56:34 GMT) :
> The check just needs to be moved a little. The initial patch should be
> reversed and the following patch should be applied. With the caveat that
> I haven't had a chance to finish testing it yet. Though I should have
> that done in a few hours.
On 07/01/2012 03:02 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> tags 679597 + patch
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> John Johansen wrote (30 Jun 2012 07:30:20 GMT) :
>> Fix the parser so it checks for the presence of the network feature in the
>> compatibility interface. Previously it was assuming that if the compatibility
>> in
tags 679597 + patch
thanks
Hi,
John Johansen wrote (30 Jun 2012 07:30:20 GMT) :
> Fix the parser so it checks for the presence of the network feature in the
> compatibility interface. Previously it was assuming that if the compatibility
> interface was present that network rules where also presen
On 06/29/2012 07:54 PM, intrig...@debian.org wrote:
> Package: apparmor
> Version: 2.7.103-3
> Severity: grave
> X-Debbugs-CC: john.johan...@canonical.com, k...@debian.org, mi...@riseup.net
>
> Hi,
>
> (following-up on #676515)
>
> John Johansen wrote (26 Jun 2012 17:48:38 GMT) :
>> Okay, there
Package: apparmor
Version: 2.7.103-3
Severity: grave
X-Debbugs-CC: john.johan...@canonical.com, k...@debian.org, mi...@riseup.net
Hi,
(following-up on #676515)
John Johansen wrote (26 Jun 2012 17:48:38 GMT) :
> Okay, there are 4 kernel patches, not all of them are needed depending on
> whether
5 matches
Mail list logo
