[lxc-devel] Regarding splitting lxc and lxc-libs

[Johannes Kastl]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Dwight,

thanks for the answer.

On 03.02.2015 Dwight Engen wrote:

> Yes, for example a program that just uses the lxc API should only 
> need the lxc-libs package.

But is it worth it? Both of the resulting rpms are like 200KB. Does
not seem like a waste of space. Unless there are security implications?

And out of curiosity: Which are these programs that only use the API?

> Not sure how well this is actually split up right now though given
>  that things like the startup scripts, lxc-monitor, etc... are in
> the main package.

It would be really good if someone knowledgeable (i.e. not me) took a
look and sorted out which file goes into which package.

> I think these apparmor additions to the upstream .spec should 
> continue to be behind %if suse_version since they doesn't make
> sense in the Fedora derived distros :)

Are they not using apparmor? (Selinux on Fedora does ring a bell, but
I am too tired to remember... ;-) )

Regards,
Johannes
- -- 
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer
is NO. (unknown)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Using GnuPG with SeaMonkey - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlTRPVIACgkQzi3gQ/xETbJkVACfVuti5FPe9a6Fbd/D8+2IyBLQ
pLYAn0oRMEkdzACPqmX/ba9KsA4pFfkz
=G9/4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----