On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 15:04 +0100, Filipe Laíns via arch-general wrote: > Hey Gus, > > I'm sorry but I'm not the maintainer :/. You'll need to talk to them > again. If you think the closure of the bug was wrong I suggest to > send > a mail to the mailing list explaining this. > > Why don't you use linux-hardened instead? It's up-to-date and has > both > options enabled (AppArmor and SELinux). > > I feel that it's the biggest issue. We already have a kernel with > both > options enabled so there's no point on also adding them in the main > one, given that those option require a lot of userspace support. Do > you > have relevant reason why you don't want to use linux-hardened? If so, > that would probably change some things. > > Thanks, > Filipe Laíns > 3DCE 51D6 0930 EBA4 7858 BA41 46F6 33CB B0EB 4BF2 Hey, Nevermind my reply. The email somehow didn't get moved to my mailing list folder so I thought it was sent to my address directly. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, Filipe Laíns 3DCE 51D6 0930 EBA4 7858 BA41 46F6 33CB B0EB 4BF2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
