On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 22:34 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:10, Scott James Remnant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > 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]" ? > > The /bin/rpm binary is linked against libselinux.so and has code to assign the > correct security context to each file at creation time. Doing for dpkg what > has been done for rpm means putting in SE Linux specific code for file > labelling which is not generic, and won't work for other security systems. > Why can't this just be done in postinst? 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