Re: base-files and /dev
Russell Coker wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Does base-files really need to own /dev? If so why?
> > >
> > > In my SE Linux security policy I am only allowing devfsd to change the
> > > context of all /dev on a devfs system. Upgrading base-files causes dpkg
> > > to try and relabel /dev as it's apparently owned by base-files.
> > Seems like a misfeature that we should better fix rather than hide it
> > by removing /dev from base-files.
> Are you saying that the presense of /dev in base-files is a
> mis-feature or that banning programs other than devfsd from
> molesting a devfs file system is a mis-feature?
I mean that dpkg should probably stop doing whatever it tries to do
when it upgrades base-files. base-files does not contain any file in
/dev, it only contains the directory itself. If dpkg feels the need to
do something with /dev when it upgrades base-files, I think that's a
problem in dpkg, and that's where we should fix it, not in base-files.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com