New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Install auditd package #158

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 22, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@artem-sidorenko
Member

artem-sidorenko commented May 10, 2017

Fixes GH-145

The new recipe is created with possible assumption, what auditd might get
its configuration later. Besides that, there is no other good place for this

Signed-off-by: Artem Sidorenko artem@posteo.de

Install auditd package
Fixes GH-145

The new recipe is created with possible assumption, what auditd might get
its configuration later. Besides that, there is no other good place for this

Signed-off-by: Artem Sidorenko <artem@posteo.de>

@alexpop alexpop added the in progress label May 10, 2017

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coveralls

coveralls May 11, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 037bbbb on audit-fix into 17bf195 on master.

coveralls commented May 11, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 037bbbb on audit-fix into 17bf195 on master.

@atomic111

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@atomic111

atomic111 May 11, 2017

Member

@artem-sidorenko we got some errors in travis. Also we should remove allow_failures in the travis.yml. whats your opinion?

Member

atomic111 commented May 11, 2017

@artem-sidorenko we got some errors in travis. Also we should remove allow_failures in the travis.yml. whats your opinion?

@artem-sidorenko

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@artem-sidorenko

artem-sidorenko May 12, 2017

Member

@atomic111 errors in travis are also because of dev-sec/linux-baseline#61

When this PR and this from linux-baseline are merged, this should finally fix the integration tests

Also we should remove allow_failures in the travis.yml. whats your opinion?

We discussed that with @chris-rock several times, e.g. #142 (comment)

First problem is: we want to have it with allow_failures, as we might get changes in baseline (we want to accept), but this changes might be without implementation here (so the tests will be red).

Another problem is, in order to have this tests running you as contributor need to specify the DO token in your travis configuration (I think we can't require that). And travis does not expose the token in the PR builds with contributions from forks (see secrets docs of travis), so basically all PRs from forks will be always red

Member

artem-sidorenko commented May 12, 2017

@atomic111 errors in travis are also because of dev-sec/linux-baseline#61

When this PR and this from linux-baseline are merged, this should finally fix the integration tests

Also we should remove allow_failures in the travis.yml. whats your opinion?

We discussed that with @chris-rock several times, e.g. #142 (comment)

First problem is: we want to have it with allow_failures, as we might get changes in baseline (we want to accept), but this changes might be without implementation here (so the tests will be red).

Another problem is, in order to have this tests running you as contributor need to specify the DO token in your travis configuration (I think we can't require that). And travis does not expose the token in the PR builds with contributions from forks (see secrets docs of travis), so basically all PRs from forks will be always red

@artem-sidorenko

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@artem-sidorenko

artem-sidorenko May 12, 2017

Member

I see, there is also another failing test with disabled modules. Lets fix it outside of this PR

Member

artem-sidorenko commented May 12, 2017

I see, there is also another failing test with disabled modules. Lets fix it outside of this PR

@chris-rock

Thank you @artem-sidorenko I added my question

# limitations under the License.
#
package 'auditd'

This comment has been minimized.

@chris-rock

chris-rock May 12, 2017

Member

Is auditd package available on all supported platforms?

@chris-rock

chris-rock May 12, 2017

Member

Is auditd package available on all supported platforms?

This comment has been minimized.

@artem-sidorenko

artem-sidorenko May 18, 2017

Member

Based on the CI tests I noticed the different names here. I'll add a fix to this PR

@artem-sidorenko

artem-sidorenko May 18, 2017

Member

Based on the CI tests I noticed the different names here. I'll add a fix to this PR

@chris-rock chris-rock merged commit 1ba8541 into master May 22, 2017

3 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage remained the same at 100.0%
Details

@chris-rock chris-rock deleted the audit-fix branch May 22, 2017

@chris-rock chris-rock removed the in progress label May 22, 2017

@artem-sidorenko

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@artem-sidorenko

artem-sidorenko May 22, 2017

Member

@chris-rock too fast :-( I did not have the time to address the different package names yet. I'll create another PR

Member

artem-sidorenko commented May 22, 2017

@chris-rock too fast :-( I did not have the time to address the different package names yet. I'll create another PR

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment