I was thinking we drop the includes and use my approach. On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, rpcraig <rpcr...@tycho.ncsc.mil> wrote: > On 09/26/2012 03:38 PM, William Roberts wrote: >> Looks sane, just noticing that the "includes" are still there... > > If we have a consensus I drop them. >> >> Wouldn't is make more sense to be able to have a domain.te app.te and >> others in the sepolicy directory too, so it follows the >> external/sepolicy as much as possible? Just concatenate anything >> ending in .te? >> How much of a pain would it be to throw that in there too? > Already does it. Didn't feel like breaking them out. >> >> Do we want an direct replace on seapp_contexts too? replace doesn't >> invoke check_seapp where a union would? Does that even make sense to >> offer that feature since it is smart override-able? The current >> check_seapp tool covers my use cases like a champ.. >> > Not sure if we do want to extend the feature to seapp_contexts, but > just use $(call build_policy, seapp_contexts) to find out.
-- Respectfully, William C Roberts -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the seandroid-list mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majord...@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe seandroid-list" without quotes as the message.
