On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 21:02 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:46, Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 05:40:05PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > > The alternative to this is to patch dpkg with SE Linux support in the > > > way that rpm has been. Should I implement the needed functionality in > > > that manner? > > > > I would suggest that. SE Linux is an exception in that it needs to > > update file system attributes for /any/ installed package. Creating too > > generic solutions to such highly exceptional situations seems overly > > broad to me. > > Your suggestion makes sense to me. > That would be the suggestion that has utterly failed to be elaborated, yes? What is "the way that rpm has been [patched]" ? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part