Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: extrace
Version : 0.4
Upstream Author : Leah Neukirchen
* URL : https://github.com/chneukirchen/extrace
* License : BSD
Programming
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: nq
Version : 0.2.1
Upstream Author : Leah Neukirchen
* URL : https://github.com/chneukirchen/nq
* License : CC0
Programming Lang: C
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1173 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 147 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reques
Hello David,
On Thu, Nov 23 2017, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
>> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
>> > or Depended on, s
On 2017-11-10 23:18:26, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anton Gladky
>
> * Package name: benchmark
> Version : 1.3.0
> * URL : https://github.com/google/benchmark
> * License : Apache-2.0
> Programming Lang: C++
> Description
maximilian attems writes ("Re: recommends for apparmor in newest
linux-image-4.13"):
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:00:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/08/msg00090.html
> > [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/10/threads.html#00086
> > [
David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive
packages to -offensive"):
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
> > > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:00:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:18:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
> > linux packages?
>
> This is in response to a discussion that happened
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:01:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> That's still not an upstream default lsm. Looks like someone in
> Debian just decided to make apparmor the default, which is horrible
> news :(
Hello, Christoph,
do you think you could manage to either point the general -devel
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:01:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
That's still not an upstream default lsm. Looks like someone in
Debian just decided to make apparmor the default, which is horrible
news :(
not "just decided", it was extensively discussed.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:59:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 14:58 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:55:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > AppArmor is the default LSM.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a default LSM in Linux.
>
> $ grep D
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:55:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> AppArmor is the default LSM.
There is no such thing as a default LSM in Linux.
> > The changelog suggests it was done that systemd units might use it,
> > but in that case those systemd units should depend on apparmor.
>
> They don
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:18:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
> linux packages?
This is in response to a discussion that happened on this list. The
thread started in august last year[1], but really picked up
On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 14:58 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:55:49PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > AppArmor is the default LSM.
>
> There is no such thing as a default LSM in Linux.
$ grep DEFAULT_SECURITY /boot/config-4.13.0-1-amd64
# CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY_SELINU
On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 14:18 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
> linux packages? apparomor is just one of many security modules, and
> a fairly bogus one to start with. The kernel should not recommend it
> as it doe
Hi all,
is there any good reason for the recommends of apparmor in the latest
linux packages? apparomor is just one of many security modules, and
a fairly bogus one to start with. The kernel should not recommend it
as it doesn't add at all to the expected kernel functionality.
The changelog sug
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
> > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
^^
>
> If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into
> a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name
> by adding "-offensive". For example, "cowsay" vs
> "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can
> be Suggested by the core packag
18 matches
Mail list logo
