Re: Override changes standard -> optional
On Wed, Jan 07 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
>>> I also still feel there should be a debian-selinux mailing list,
>>> probably targeted at both DDs and users. Would you care to take the
>>> lead on that and request one?
>>
>> There are already alioth lists for this.
>> selinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
>> selinux-user@lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> Ah, OK. I was not aware of those lists. One reason for that is probably
> that they are not even mentioned on the wiki...
I think the wiki postdates the creation of the lists.
> Google also does not find them for me.
>
>> Given the traffic and number of subscribers there, do we really
>> need lists.d.o lists?
>
> Maybe not, but it shows the existing lists do need better advertising.
>
> However, personally I dislike mailing lists on alioth as my general
> experience is that the are poorly administered and not obvious to find
> for people who are not directly involved. From that perspective switching
> to l.d.o may be preferable after all.
Feel free.
>> Which, in my case, tends to come in
>> spurts, and the prognosis for the future does not look good, given the
>> development atmosphere in Debian. (For example, expressing
>> disappointment in the level of "support" while doing nothing to help
>> the process along).
>
> Bullshit. I've spent quite a lot of time on trying SELinux and reporting
> issues in Aug-Okt 2007. With absolutely zero response [1]. So after a
> while I gave up.
With only two people working on SElinux at all, and the fact
that, unlike Fedora, we have little support from the core
infrastructure teams, means that people with problems might have to
actually research the issues and find their own solutions, until the
people who are working on it find time.
I do think it is going to be hard to get mandatory access
control working on Debian unless there is somewhat of a concerted
effort to support it in installation; which is the part that is
lagging. Most package developers, and, better yet, upstream seem to be
far happier about incorporating SELinux patches and support.
For example, I hear that SE-Postgresql support is being
considered for Postgres 8.4.
> [1] I did get some response on the upstream list and IRC channel which I'd
> joined at the time, amongst others from Russell, but none from you or on
> the bug reports while you had explicitly promised active support, for
> example in your Debconf talk.
Real life happens. The available time I have to spend on Debian
tends to come in bursts. The debconf talk was about intent; and if you
think that that implied a promise, you were mistaken. For volunteer
work, if you want guaranteed support, you might have to hire folks to
ensure you are not "disappointed".
People who are less acerbic and in my face might have fared
better than you did. But then, you take what you get when you choose
the less-than-friendly approach, like you are right now.
I am certainly not going to "support" people who are quite so
unfriendly, and who are not also paying for my time.
manoj
--
To think is human, to compute, divine.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: