On September 9, 2018 10:00:03 PM GMT+02:00, Leonid Isaev via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 02:53:04PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-general >wrote: >> Heftig retracted his initial willingness to enable apparmor because >he >> did not think it useful enough without the userland tools. It wasn't >> rejected because we hate the idea or consider it not Arch-like... it >was >> rejected because on its own, it could be considered >not-important-enough >> to warrant enabling. > >FWIW, I actually agree with #59733: CONFIG_AUDIT=n was blocking >AppArmor >adoption... Perhaps relevant: >https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/08/msg00090.html . > >But I have a question: why was AUDIT enabled in the first place? I >thought it >was cosidered useless? > >Cheers, >L. FYI, I'm currently working on bringing the user space tools to [community], but the rule sets will require testing and possibly we'll even have to have our own set shipped with the package. I'll let you know asap. As a side note: As Eli already pointed out there is no need for personal attacks because of a discussion on this topic. We'll try to make this ship sail, but it needs time (and testing). Best, David -- https://sleepmap.de
