[PATCH v2 3/7] docs: Fix virt-aa-helper location
Michal Privoznik
mprivozn at redhat.com
Thu Jan 30 07:54:17 UTC 2020
On 1/30/20 8:39 AM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:06 AM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com
> <mailto:mprivozn at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> The location of virt-aa-helper shown in the docs is incorrect.
> The helper binary is installed under libexec dir.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com
> <mailto:mprivozn at redhat.com>>
> ---
> docs/drvqemu.html.in <http://drvqemu.html.in> | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/docs/drvqemu.html.in <http://drvqemu.html.in>
> b/docs/drvqemu.html.in <http://drvqemu.html.in>
> index 87542afd27..93a7e6e7df 100644
> --- a/docs/drvqemu.html.in <http://drvqemu.html.in>
> +++ b/docs/drvqemu.html.in <http://drvqemu.html.in>
> @@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ chmod o+x /path/to/directory
> <p>
> While users can define their own AppArmor profile scheme, a
> typical
> configuration will include a profile for
> <code>/usr/sbin/libvirtd</code>,
> - <code>/usr/lib/libvirt/virt-aa-helper</code> (a helper
> program which the
> + <code>/usr/libexec/virt-aa-helper</code> (a helper program
> which the
>
>
> Don't get me wrong please the changes in this series seem correct to me
> to have filenames/doc match the rest of the code.
>
> But as it became clear in the discussion on v1 - the two Distributions
> that actually run apparmor usually (Suse and Ubuntu) have the helper in
> different places.
> We seem to agree on the rules to list a multitude of paths.
>
> But I wonder if in docs and makefiles this should be part of the
> .html.in <http://html.in> -> .html conversion to set the right paths for
> each.
> Otherwise Suse and Ubuntu will have to carry reverts or modifications of
> these changes forever.
> For example the path above is in fact the correct path on Ubuntu - that
> might also be the history how it became that way in the src.
>
> Essentially this comes through config option
> --libexecdir=/usr/lib/libvirt, so we would not even have to add a new
> argument for this.
> What do others think about this (for all the patches of the series it
> applies to)?
Aha! This is the missing part. I didn't realize that one can specify
libexecdir independently. Alright, let me see if I can get these
generated. In order to do that I would probably need to move existing
files to XXX.in and have a simple sed to replace LIBEXEC with its actual
value.
Meanwhile, I will merge the three patches you ACKed since they are
independent of the rest.
Thanks,
Michal
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list