| 1 |
On 5/6/06, Petre Rodan <kaiowas@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > -Petre Rodan wrote: "use what we have now in the stable branch please" |
| 3 |
> > [So is that a package in portage then?] Sorry if I'm being dense here. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> it means use the stable version of the toolchain ( sys-apps/checkpolicy sys-apps/policycoreutils sys-libs/libsepol sys-libs/libselinux sys-libs/libsemanage dev-python/python-selinux ) and the policies we now have in sec-policy/*. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> and even if there will be a serefpolicy release, you are asked not to blindly migrate your production servers/whatever without a thorough test. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > -How far along is the work to migrate to the reference policy? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> all policies except clockspeed is now in the upstream repository. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So what's the status of Gentoo SELinux these days? The handbook seems |
| 14 |
to be updated in the last month, so I guess it's not dead. Just hard |
| 15 |
for me (as a non-dev) to see much going on. I have noticed though that |
| 16 |
glibc-2.4 and gcc-4 are still masked, which makes me think this is |
| 17 |
what was previously referred to by a "non-broken toolchain"? Or are |
| 18 |
migration problems the real issue (based on comments in package.mask)? |
| 19 |
Are anywhere close to having a selinux/2006.1 profile or is 2007.0 |
| 20 |
more realistic? And for a new installation, it looks like it might be |
| 21 |
best to avoid 2006.1 in favor of 2006.0 or earlier, since 2006.1 has |
| 22 |
glibc-2.4 and gcc-4.1. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
This message has been scanned for memes and |
| 25 |
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is |
| 26 |
believed to be unclean. |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives