-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/06/2014 01:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Daniel J Walsh <dwa...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> All in the world, or all that have been created for currently >>> installed packages? Is this as bad as rpm packaging where any two >>> different sources are likely to conflict in name and/or contents? >>> >> Well we have not had this problem over the years, since most people >> upstream their policy. Right now if a customer installed a policy file >> which conflicted with the base policy, it will get overwritten. I guess >> if they did it will rpm then it would get you an RPM error/warning. > > What does 'upstream' mean in the context of packages that aren't included > in RHEL base or EPEL? It just seems like a giant list of global variables > without any structure or namespace management. > Not sure what you mean but these are files on a file system, Which I guess you define as a giant list of global variables. The names tend to match the name of the package they are confining. sshd.pp confined sshd for example.
selinux-policy is a big upstream project hosted at tresys, where you would discover the conflicting names. We don't tend to add few new policy packages to a major rhel release. So it is unlikely that we would have a conflict with a name in an Enterprise release. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlMY4EIACgkQrlYvE4MpobNEKwCdG3do+6eBjN0U0An343JPxwaG LEcAn3XBR5C/CInC8cuRmyM1hQ3ZiwcD =UZlW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
