On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:51:25PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote: > How about you just follow the same road that Exim took? > Develop the module, send it to SELinux policy upstream, who happily > included it in policy upstream. > When the refpolicy package is updated again (Manoj seems to be MIA?), > then we can close this bug.
I reassigned the bug to a SELinux package and it was immediately bounced back to the Leafnode package. What this tells me is that you do not wish to see this fixed in the SELinux packages but would rather see this fixed in the Leafnode package. Now you're telling me that this should, as I had originally understood, be fixed in the SELinux packages. > > There has certainly been no visible work on encouraging anyone to > > provide SELinux policies outside the SELinux packages and I can't seem > > to see any obvious support for doing so. > Which is irrelevant, actually, that this isn't obviously done... > There is a package, selinux-policy-refpolicy-dev, for developing custom > policy modules. I'm sorry, I can't entirely parse what you're saying here. You appear to be talking about having the ability to build new SELinux policies? This is obviously true - the point is that there is no visible support for including new SELinux policy information in packages. > It's not at all against the desires of the SELinux people that you > develop a policy for leafnode. It currently makes more sense to add the > policy module to the refpolicy package *when it's done*, but that's > independent of the actual policy development. Either you want me to implement SELinux support in the Leafnode package or you want this to be done in the SELinux packages. Which is the case? -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
