[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SE Linux packages

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 14:56 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/libc/libcgroup.html
> > 
> > Currently I have a problem though, policycoreutils in testing depends on
> > libcgroup1 which isn't in testing.
> Really?  Which architecture at you seeing that on?  There shouldn't be
> any packages in testing which depend on libcgroup1, otherwise it
> wouldn't have managed to be removed.
> policycoreutils in unstable does indeed depend on libcgroup1; is that
> what you meant?

Sorry I made a mistake.  I had a system accidentally getting the Unstable 
version of policycoreutils.

But the situation in testing is actually worse in some ways now that I have 
investigated it properly.  /usr/sbin/seunshare is linked against libcgroup1 
but somehow the package doesn't depend on it.  So you can install the new 
package and get a binary that won't run!

> > According to the above a low priority
> > package was uploaded 5 days ago.  Is it possible to get it back into
> > testing sooner so other packages that depend on it can be installed? 
> > It's currently impossible to run SE Linux on a system that's been
> > upgraded from Squeeze to Testing due to this.
> $ grep-excuses libcgroup
> libcgroup (- to 0.38-1)
>     Maintainer: Jon Bernard
>     Too young, only 5 of 10 days old
>     cgroup-bin (i386, amd64, armel, armhf, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc,
> s390, s390x, sparc) has new bugs! Updating cgroup-bin introduces new bugs:
> #618956
> Without a largish britney hammer, it's not going to migrate again until
> that bug is sorted out.

That bug is old and doesn't seem likely to be fixed soon.  A SE Linux system 
will work well enough without seunshare, should I just remove that program so 
that policycoreutils can go through?

My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/

Reply to: