| 1 |
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 19:12, Robin H.Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:55:36AM -0500, Chris PeBenito wrote: |
| 3 |
> > For the new SELinux API in 2.6, it is required that the SELinux policy |
| 4 |
> > is loaded by initrd. We don't have a mkinitrd in portage. I could add |
| 5 |
> > a Gentoo-fixed RedHat mkinitrd, but I'd prefer not to, since all I have |
| 6 |
> > to do in the initrd is 3 commands (and I don't want to maintain a |
| 7 |
> > mkinitrd ebuild either). However, there is a static shell in the RedHat |
| 8 |
> > mkinitrd package (nash) that is compiled with dietlibc which I do want, |
| 9 |
> > because its tiny, and made to run in a initrd. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Would it be acceptable to create something like a "mkpolicyinitrd" |
| 12 |
> > package that pulls in the RH src rpm, and compiles nash out of it, and |
| 13 |
> > adds in my own mkinitrd script? I could also put the mkinitrd in our |
| 14 |
> > selinux-base-policy ebuild, and just create a nash ebuild. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I would rather have a ebuild just for nash. Is there any preference, or |
| 17 |
> > other suggestions? |
| 18 |
> I started on some of this before, when I almost needed an initrd for |
| 19 |
> some boxes (due to crappy hardware, i ended up buying some 3ware raid |
| 20 |
> controllers instead). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Based on how redhat packages it, I'd suggest a mkinitrd package that |
| 23 |
> pulls in their srpm (from their RawHide sources as the latest contains a |
| 24 |
> number of fixed wrt lvm and other things), and builds /sbin/mkinitrd, |
| 25 |
> /sbin/nash, /sbin/grubby. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> As you note that you are not willing to maintain the mkinitrd ebuild, if |
| 28 |
> you do put it in, I'm willing to maintain it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Is it not possible to use sash rather than nash ? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 36 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 37 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives