[arch-general] AppArmor support

[Gus]

It was accepted first [1], and then rejected for reasons that doesn't 
apply
fully to AppArmor, and i doesn't hid anything, so stop playing 
detective.
Like Scimmia said "There are better mediums to have this discussion." 
and
for such discussions we have this mailing list, doesn't we?

[1] 
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/linux&id=c75a915313f72924fa0a3ed45356f9e0ea488f3b

On 2018-09-09 18:24, Maksim Fomin via arch-general wrote:
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:34, Gus <qty at airmail.cc> wrote:
> 
>> > You have been rejected by heftig and tpowa. It is unclear why and what
>> 
>> > you are asking here.
>> 
>> It was accepted first and then rejected by heftig.
> 
> Really? Just rejected by heftig? The issue was rejected 4 times, first
> by heftig than 3 times by Scimmia:
> 
> 2018-09-03
> "A Project Manager has denied the request pending for the following
> task: FS#59733 - [linux] enable AppArmor & SELinux User who did this -
> Doug Newgard (Scimmia) Reason for denial:
> 
> 2018-09-05
> "FS#59733 - [linux] enable AppArmor & SELinux User who did this - Doug
> Newgard (Scimmia) Reason for denial: No new information"
> 
> "FS#59733 - [linux] enable AppArmor & SELinux User who did this - Doug
> Newgard (Scimmia) Reason for denial: I'm not going to reopen a ticket
> for people to make the same argument over and over"
> 
> "Reason for denial: Stop having a catfight with the bugwranglers
> because you think, somehow, that people will be less likely to open
> duplicate bugs just because we provide dialog. There are better
> mediums to have this discussion."
> 
> So far, this issue was closed by heftig and then 3 times by bug
> wrangler. This fact was hidden in the first post to this thread.