1 |
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 02:03:40PM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
2 |
> Robbat2 brought the naming issue up and suggested the ${CAT}-${PN} |
3 |
> scheme, but you make a good point about the mapping being many-to-many |
4 |
> in general. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> If we agree to this standard, how to we grandfather in the packages that |
7 |
> are already in sec-policy? Renaming packages is a pita and we should |
8 |
> avoid it if we can. |
9 |
|
10 |
In theory, when the SELinux state is appropriate for more production-like |
11 |
use, the packages are being pulled in as a dependency and not as an |
12 |
emergeable package (so not "emerge selinux-gnupg" but "emerge gnupg" should |
13 |
pull in the selinux- package). |
14 |
|
15 |
As such, I think we can have the older one(s) die as long as the |
16 |
dependencies on the master packages are brought up to date. |
17 |
|
18 |
I personally dislike packages like "sec-policy/selinux-app-crypt-gnupg" if |
19 |
"sec-policy/selinux-gpg" works equally well (or better), but I haven't read |
20 |
the discussion on this online (just heard from others about it). I also |
21 |
don't mind if general consensus is not my preference as I think it is more |
22 |
important that we set a rule/guideline for the developers to follow |
23 |
strictly. |
24 |
|
25 |
Wkr, |
26 |
Sven Vermeulen |