Re: [RFC] Changing priority of selinux back to optional
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:10:19 +0100, Václav Ovsík <vaclav.ovsik@i.cz> said:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:43:54PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I don't think Lenny is in shape for a release either. It took me
>> about a day to get most SELinux packages back up to date -- which
>> means we could have them updated anytmime in the last few months, if
>> any one had the time or motivsation.
> Yes, updating packages is not so much work. Some work is done already
> be me. Packages are compiled in binary form only for Etch at
> repository http://linux.i.cz/debian/ selinux-etch.
Thanks for your work for getting backports into Etch.
> I hope sources are usable for Sid
> http://linux.i.cz/debian/dists/selinux-etch/main/source/Sources.gz.Repository
> is managed by reprepro and packages lays in to pool. I can rebuild
> packages for Sid and create repository selinux-sid if anyone there
> wants. (In that case I must probably rebuild Etch variants with some
> different release number to prevent collision between Etch & Sid
> variant. I think, that after some cleanup (changelog), you can use
> some packages from this repo. All packaging (except clear backports
> Sid-> Etch) is versioned using git-buildpackage (currently not
> accessible). Code is taken from subversion
> https://selinux.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/selinux/trunk
Well, don't bother with the SELinux packages; most of them are
already in Incoming, though I am not packaging straight out of SVN yet.
I'm sticking to the released versions, until I can see a clear need to
go to SVN HEAD ...
> checkpolicy 2.0.9.svn20080204.r2784-0.icz.1 libselinux
> 2.0.51.svn20080205.r2790-0.icz.1 libsemanage
> 2.0.23.svn20080206.r2791-0.icz.1 libsepol
> 2.0.20.svn20080204.r2778-0.icz.1 policycoreutils
> 2.0.42.svn20080202.r2776-0.icz.1 sepolgen
> 1.0.11.svn20080123.r2738-0.icz.1
> - staff from selinux.svn.sourceforge.net. There are changes into
> Manojs packaging, because newer python bindings needs version
> python2.5, wich is unsupported in Etch.
Hmm. My packaging does not care, really, what the python
versions available are; and so on my machine at the moment it provides
both 2.4 and 2.5 bindings (using python-support). What changes did you
think needed to be made in the packaging?
> setools 3.3.2-0.icz.3
> - This packaging is also changed, because of new libs (libqpol,
> libpoldiff...)
Yes, I am still pondering how many packages I need to split this
into. There are 5 shared libraries, with different so names and
releases (so could be 2 packages per library -- 10 packages), then
there are python bindings (can be just one package), there are java
bindings (another package), and then there are the tools tehmselves,
adding up to 13 packages.
> I used CDBS for packaging (where packaging changed), because it is
> easy & pretty. :)
Well, that makes the packaging effort a non-starter for me; I
don't want to have to switch into CDBS.
> Openssh package of Sid needs change, because it has problems with
> initialization of user context. (Not the case for Etch openssh.)
Could you expand on this, please?
manoj
--
Americans are people who insist on living in the present, tense.
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: