Re: Re: [RFC] Changing priority of selinux back to optional
Thanks, Manoj, for this powerful 'comeback'.
Looks like you've updated most of the packages already; at least the
non-GUI ones (which are the ones I care most about, I never really got
the hang of the UI apps).
Don't forget we'll also (AFAIK) need updates to PAM and OpenSSH.
These two are very important.
We still might want to share efforts with the Ubuntu folks, especially
if TreSys is involved there. I know that you don't like CDBS, but I find
it rather easy to use, whereas I never got around to dig into your make
system (I admit that this might be just because I wasn't willing to
spend the half hour or hour of concentration that I would have needed
for this). When I was doing backports for sarge (I guess) a long time
ago, it felt easier for me to redo them in CDBS than to find out how to
remove python-support and do manual python packaging in yours.
It would make sense to use a common 'codebase' for the Ubuntu and the
Debian stuff, but I'm not sure about the package quality of the Ubuntu
packages - at least they lack the usual upstream/diff split. I had a
quick look at the libselinux package, and it was using CDBS.
It's a very unfortunate situation that you don't use CDBS and many
others (just judging from the reports I've seen here, I'm not the only
one who said he decided to use CDBS instead) don't get the hang for your
build system. This doesn't make it easier to get more people involved.
But as long as you are around and updating the packages it's not at all
important - you're doing the job, so you get to decide. EOD.
P.S. If anyone wants to adopt the "selinux-basics" package, go ahead.
erich@(vitavonni.de|debian.org) -- GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C (o_
Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares? //\
Wer keine Zeit mehr mit echten Freunden verbringt, der wird bald V_/_
sein Gleichgewicht verlieren. --- Michael Levine