Hi Bruno, Thanks for responding!
> 1) It very much looks like it has not been tested. Dammit. I did test a very similar patch (differing only in the placement of &&), then changed the placement of the && to conform to the GNU coding standards. And I didn't test because surely that tiny change can't matter. Someday, I'll learn my lesson... Apologies. > 2) The patch confuses two functionalities: > - (a) whether to interface with libselinux, > - (b) whether to build the chcon, runcon programs. > By the GNU Coding Standards, (a) should be triggered by a --with-* > configure option; whereas (b) should be triggered by a --enable-* > configure option. > > So, instead of changing the meaning of the --with-selinux / > --without-selinux options, what we would need is a patch that > enables the build of the chcon, runcon programs conditionally based > on some --enable-* option. That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. (For what it's worth, I was going off of coreutils commit 8ba47d09a33f0740e071a8394f3504e0fb57948e and the corresponding entry in the version 9.9 release announcement, which both documented its intent to use --with-selinux for both purposes.) Unfortunately, I doubt I'll be able to provide that patch for coreutils in the next week or so. (I had thought that the patch I provided was nearly at the limit of my automake capabilities at the moment, but clearly it in fact exceeded them :) ) So if this email could please be considered a bug report in coreutils, that would be much appreciated. Thanks again, Michael
