Re: libselinux1 - required
On 08/06/05, Petter Reinholdtsen <email@example.com> wrote:
> [Nigel Jones]
> > if "coreutils" is made absolutely dependant on libselinux1, then the
> > user gets no choice...
> One think is depending on the library, another is actually using
> selinux. Your objection to use selinux might have some merit, but
> your objection to have a package depend on libselinux1 does not. In
I guess it's distrust of thee who make it (please don't start a flame
war, it's personal opinion, you must accept that, i know it gets
looked at by many eyes, but i still don't like the idea. No matter
how hard you look, it's easy enough to slip a backdoor or something
in, and in the kernel, well thats not good). - I don't have distrust
for common programs that may have had a Government developer or two
work on it, but when the majority is made by a Govt department, thats
when I loose the trust.
> RedHat, using selinux is a run time option. If one don't want to use
Wasn't sure how Red Hat did it...
> it, all one need to do is update a config file and reboot. I'm sure
> can get something similar working in Debian.
Hmmm, I can see your point, BUT, if a user is not going to use selinux
at all, then what is the use of downloading extra dependencies that
you don't need. I thought that a feature of APT was that it makes you
only download the libraries that you need/use.
Anyway, just my two cents. Personally, I'm going to continue to build
my own kernels, just be an annoyance to have to build my own coreutils
etc to make sure code that I don't need isn't there. (Because really,
it is a bit hard on the Dial Up users (not really complaining, just
saying that downloading stuff that your never going to use is a bit of
Of course, you could most likely say that about quite a few of the libraries.
Blogging @ http://nigelj.blogspot.com
Proud Debian & FOSS User
Debian Maintainer of: html2ps & ipkungfu