Re: SELinux package
Oh damn. My mail program flagged an old message as a new message. Sorry.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:53, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:07, rmayr@debian.org wrote:
> > If this has already been discussed, please excuse this mail. I am not at
> > my
>
> Several times, along with a number of announcements of progress.
>
> > development machine since about 2 months and am writing this from a
> > web-to-mail gateway, so please be patient with me.... :-)
>
> The list is archived on the web, google should turn up some information.
>
> > Is anybody working on packaging NSA SELinux at the moment ? There should
> > be
>
> I am.
>
> > no problem with licensing (all of their code is either under GPL or BSD)
> > and it should not be too difficult to create SELinux versions of
> > util-linux, .... and a kernel-patch-selinux package.
>
> The kernel patch package has been in unstable for quite some time. I
> haven't bothered to check on its progress into woody, but it's likely to be
> there by now. NB it's an LSM patch as LSM now includes the SE Linux patch.
>
> Creating SE Linux versions of these packages is very painful, which is why
> I haven't finished it yet.
>
> > I am be willing to do it (I need to start experimenting with it), but I
> > would be a lot happier if anybody else is already doing it because my
> > other packages also demand quite a lot of attention right now.
>
> See http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ as previously announced both here and
> on the SE Linux mailing list, and also referenced in my talk at
> linux.conf.au recently.
>
> But I suggest that you don't even try it at the moment unless you have some
> significant amounts of time to work on it. At the moment I can practically
> guarantee that installing it will break something...
--
Signatures >4 lines are rude. If you send email to me or to a mailing list
that I am subscribed to which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end
then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the
message (the sig won't be read).
Reply to: