Re: Should selinux be standard?

[Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 15 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> 
>> Bastian Blank wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:03PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>>> Le lundi 15 septembre 2008 à 10:12 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>>>> > > Agreed. Either SELinux is suitable with our default setup and we
>>>> > > should enable it by default to get all its alleged benefits, or it
>>>> > > is not, and we should simply not install it.
>>>> >         Since the new default policy seems to be working in targeted
>>>> >  mode, I think we are doing fine.
>>>> Fine. Then let’s enable it by default.
>>> 
>>> Oh yeah. Do you intend to do the support?
>>
>> If it is not very functional by default, or it is but nobody is
>> willing to support it, then it shouldn't be standard; that's the main
>> point.
> 
>         If it is not functional, there should be bugs filed, no?

There should and will, but only if it used.
I haven't had neither time nor interest to read the docs to correctly setup
SELinux. So, the several packages which are installed by default, because
of priority: standard, are completely useless.

> 
>         manoj

Cheers,
Raphael