* david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm> wrote:
Anybody who says "I want to run Fedora without SELINUX
because I do my own security development" is by *definition*
not relevant to the whole feature.
Don't mistake the example for the feature. the SELINUX thing
is just an example. As Alan Cox commented, taking a distro
config and disabling one thing is a common troubleshooting
request from kernel developers.
It's still irrelevant:
- if a user chooses a distro config it means that he is using
that distro. Disabling an essential component of the distro
config, even if a kernel developer asks for it, will likely
break that distro and is thus a dumb thing to do. (the
typical user will also be unlikely to be *able* to edit a
.config and make sure it works.)
- Furthermore, there's *already* over ten thousand select's in
our Kconfig's, and it's already hard at times to disable
dependent options.
- I've been using what Linus suggested for many years via
private patches to do bootable randconfig testing and the
concept works just fine - enabling a distro specific
minconfig is absolutely useful, I'm glad it's being pursued
upstream as well...
So what you are arguing about is IMO irrelevant, it is
immaterial to the problem at hand and the concept works just
fine in practice.