| 1 |
On 02/21/2011 04:57 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 02:25:29PM -0600, Chris Richards wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/12/2011 02:03 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Actually, I'm rather hoping that if everyone agrees on the guideline that |
| 5 |
>>> SELinux policy packages are called "selinux-<modname>" with<modname> being |
| 6 |
>>> the policy name used by the reference policy, that we can use that as well |
| 7 |
>>> in the Gentoo Hardened SELinux Policy document [1]. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> +1 |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Okay, with no further feedback received on this, I've added this to the |
| 12 |
> suggested Gentoo Hardened SELinux Policy document [1]. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Wkr, |
| 15 |
> Sven Vermeulen |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> [1] goo.gl/2U0Zr |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I am in agreement, but I hesitate because moving packages is a pita. If |
| 20 |
it can be done with minimal disruption, then lets move in that |
| 21 |
direction. Do you know what current sec-policy/selinux-* are in violation? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 25 |
Gentoo Developer |
Archives