| 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 |
Archives