On Jun 17, 2015 10:08 AM, "Nick Kralevich" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:08 AM, William Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think there are valid >>> use cases for seclabel, and don't believe it should be removed >>> altogether. By all means, add a restorecon_recursive("/sbin") and >>> eliminate uses of seclabel that were only required due to lack of >>> per-file labeling there. But otherwise, I don't think we are making >>> things better by insisting on never using seclabel. >> >> >> Their's no benefit there either. The point of the work was to coalesce >> an approach into a common method. So Ill let Nick make the final >> determination on direction on this. In previous emails I thought we >> were all aboard on a complete kill of seclabel (hence the topic thread name). >> killing doesn't mean leaving some to cripple on, that's maiming :-P >> > > Given the objections, I'm not comfortable with removing seclabel today. > > I'm perfectly happy to discourage it's use, and if we really see no use of it for a release or two, maybe we can re-consider wholesale elimination of it. But for now, it feels premature.
I'm more OK with that approach. What about removing all in tree uses? > > -- Nick > >
_______________________________________________ Seandroid-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. To get help, send an email containing "help" to [email protected].
