Re: [docs] Does Ubuntu 24.04 and newer still require AppArmor tweaking to run bitbake?

["Antonin Godard" <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>]

On Fri Sep 11, 2026 at 7:41 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Richard Purdie via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2026-09-11 at 05:16 -0400, Robert P. J. Day via
>> lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2026, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 2:57 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >   I use stock Debian so I haven't needed to mess with this, but
>> > > > Ubuntu
>> > > > once had this issue with AppArmor:
>> > > >
>> > > > https://developerwiki.proventusnova.com/Error:_BitBake_+_AppArmor_User_Namespace_Restriction_Fix
>> > > >
>> > > > If that's still a problem, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the
>> > > > docs.
>> > >
>> > > I don't have a running Ubuntu 26.04 distribution but I would say it
>> > > is still the
>> > > case if 26.04 is still running AppArmor.
>> > >
>> > > Users will face the same error as before which is:
>> > >
>> > >   bb.fatal("User namespaces are not usable by BitBake, possibly due
>> > > to AppArmor.\n"
>> > >            "See
>> > > https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-24-04-lts-noble-numbat-release-notes/39890#unprivileged-user-namespace-restrictions
>> > >  for more information.")
>> > >
>> > > In OE-Core's meta/lib/oe/sanity.py.
>> > >
>> > > This sounds like something we could say in the docs. Would you mind
>> > > sending a
>> > > patch for that?
>> >
>> >   seems to me that the proper place for this would be a "warning"
>> > admonition at the tail end of this section:
>> >
>> > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/system-requirements.html#supported-linux-distributions
>> >
>> > i wouldn't want to get into incredible detail there, just point out
>> > that starting with ubuntu 24.04, you would get that namespaces error,
>> > then refer the reader to that discourse link for the solution. does
>> > that sound adequate? i don't think the YP docs need to reproduce the
>> > solution in its entirety.
>>
>> This is important enough I think we should have it documented
>> ourselves, not externally where it could disappear.
>
>   So where should it go, and is anyone else keen on doing it? :-)

I think it should go under the "Ubuntu and Debian" section in a "warning"
admonition, as you suggested:
https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/system-requirements.html#ubuntu-and-debian

Thanks!
Antonin