Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 25 October 2008 00:19, Mike Edenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jim Meyering wrote: >> > A desire for compatibility makes "+" look good. >> > "." is appealing for SELinux-only because it's inconspicuous. >> >> Speaking as a fairly new SELinux user/admin, having a "." >> next to every file in my ls output is just as useful or >> non-useful as having a "+" next to them, so does it really >> buy anything? I end up needing -Z either way. > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472590 > > The above URL has the history of this discussion. I requested that there be > no such notification. I still believe that there should be nothing used in > the case of SE Linux (although I could be convinced that the "." is OK if > files with the context "system_u:object_r:file_t:s0" did not have it). > > But it seems that I have lost this debate. Using "." is better than "+", and > my request to have none of this in Lenny has been accepted so we have some > time to work on this before Lenny+1. > >> Based on the kind of real-world problems I've had, the most >> useful thing ls could tell me about a file on my SELinux >> system would be that it *should* have a label and *doesn't*, >> something like: >> >> if ( selinux_enabled ) >> if ( label == NULL || label == fs.defaultlabel ) >> use "!" >> else >> use " " >> else if ( anything else ) >> use "+" > > That sounds quite reasonable.
Actually, I'm leaning your way, now, and agree. If you, Russell, write the patch (w/NEWS and docs would be really nice) I'll make the switch upstream pretty soon. It'd be nice to give the austin group a heads up, too, since this behavior would be contrary to POSIX. I don't think it's worth it to make this depend on the setting of the POSIXLY_CORRECT envvar. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
