severity 463835 wishlist kthxbye On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:03:16AM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
> 1. selinux-basics doesn't contain SELinux policy, but is a mere utility > package, and thus the bug is not related to it. Right, I have to confess that I picked a central seeming SELinux package since it's not terribly obvious which to victimise. > 2. leafnode _could_ ship a SELinux policy module itself, this does not > need to be included with the regular policy package (it's just easier to > keep policy in sync with upstream by shipping all upstream-provided > policy in one package). Therefore, the correct address is upstream and > the maintainer of the leafnode package. Albeit they're encouraged to > submit their policy to SELinux upstream, for inclusion in the policy > repository. This is a total reversal of the previously advertised policy of the SELinux maintainers. They have in the past actively opposed packages providing any SELinux policies, indicating that they wanted to avoid adding SELinux policies to individual package, citing instability in the policy and wished to continue to develop best practices without the hassle of dealing with implementing changes over multiple 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. > I'm adding the SELinux tracking usertag, to keep track of this bug > report. Feel free to add a "help" tag, too. Given the factors above I am more inclined to close the bug or tag it wontfix. I'm really not comfortable adding SELinux support in a package while this appears to be against the desires of the people doing SELinux work. -- "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]
