Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (118 mails)
< Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-packaging] systemd presets vs. package install order
- From: Stephan Kulow <coolo@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:32:47 +0200
- Message-id: <557EA9CF.2050308@suse.de>
On 15.06.2015 12:22, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
systemd-presets-branding-openSUSE ? Shouldn't apparmor require it
directly or indirectly?
Greetings, Stephan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 12:16 +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:If we do this, what's the purpose of the
Hello,
AppArmor has a preset "enable by default" (in the separate systemd-
presets-branding-openSUSE), but unfortunately the AppArmor package
gets
installed before systemd-presets-branding-openSUSE gets installed.
The result is: AppArmor doesn't get enabled :-(
(see also https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=931792 )
Can someone recommend a solution for this, or do I need to add a
"systemctl enable apparmor.service" in %post?
I'd think that would be the wrong approach.... but that's my gut
feeling.
What about something like this in apparmor's post script:
%post
if [ "$1" = "1" ]; then # This is a fresh install, not an update...
systemctl preset apparmor.service # Set the service enable/disable as
per distribution preset
fi
This should be ess surprising in all cases, and if the preset ever
changes, this would not even need to be changed, and still do the right
thing on a new package install
systemd-presets-branding-openSUSE ? Shouldn't apparmor require it
directly or indirectly?
Greetings, Stephan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
< Previous | Next > |