Conversation
[debian](https://packages.debian.org/buster/apparmor) [ubuntu](https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/apparmor) Not found for: [fedora](https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/s/apparmor)
tfoote
left a comment
tfoote
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like Fedora doesn't support apparmor without a custom kernel: https://serverfault.com/questions/339842/apparmor-on-fedora-rhel-centos
@cottsay any suggestions?
|
@ruffsl This has been in draft state for almost 2 months. Any thoughts on whether this is going to move forward? Thanks. |
|
Sorry, this fell off my backlog. I don't have any further changes for this, and is ready. |
Thanks, appreciated. |
| ubuntu: [apache2-mpm-prefork] | ||
| apparmor: | ||
| debian: [apparmor] | ||
| ubuntu: [apparmor] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As we discussed above, this won't realistically ever be available for Fedora. I'm thinking we should put an explicit fedora: null here, to indicate that it can't be available for Fedora (rather than just not being done, or something that could be done later).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I never realized rosdistro was using null to explicitly state unavailability, as it seems the null set is arbitrarily large. If this is common practice, then I can update the PR accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to be a relatively new practice, and to be honest, the tools don't support it all that well (rosdep just throws a stacktrace if you try to install a null key). But I think it should be straightforward enough to enhance the tools to make it nicer.
to explicitly indicate that it isn't available for Fedora Signed-off-by: ruffsl <roxfoxpox@gmail.com>
4 participants
debian
ubuntu
Not found for:
fedora