| 1 |
On 02/12/2011 02:03 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Indeed; however I couldn't find a post or something that reflects that we |
| 3 |
> are indeed trying to following the upstream module naming. For instance, the |
| 4 |
> packages selinux-acpi (mod=apm), selinux-courier-imap (mod=courier), |
| 5 |
> selinux-cyrus-sasl (mod=sasl), selinux-desktop (various mods), selinux-ftpd |
| 6 |
> (mod=ftp), selinux-gnupg (mod=gpg) and more all don't follow this logic, |
| 7 |
> even though I see no reason why they don't (except for the selinux-desktop |
| 8 |
> one). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It looked/looks like those packages rather follow the Gentoo package names |
| 11 |
> instead of the SELinux module. |
| 12 |
I rather suspect that, since PeBenito was basically the only one working |
| 13 |
on that stuff, he probably named them according to what seemed |
| 14 |
appropriate for that specific module. Obviously, with more of us |
| 15 |
working on the project now we need a somewhat more formal declaration, |
| 16 |
so it is quite appropriate to bring the subject up. |
| 17 |
> Actually, I'm rather hoping that if everyone agrees on the guideline that |
| 18 |
> SELinux policy packages are called "selinux-<modname>" with<modname> being |
| 19 |
> the policy name used by the reference policy, that we can use that as well |
| 20 |
> in the Gentoo Hardened SELinux Policy document [1]. |
| 21 |
+1 |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Later, |
| 24 |
Chris |
Archives