On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:33:06 +0000, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:51:25PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
>> How about you just follow the same road that Exim took? Develop the
>> module, send it to SELinux policy upstream, who happily included it
>> in policy upstream. When the refpolicy package is updated again
>> (Manoj seems to be MIA?), then we can close this bug.
> I reassigned the bug to a SELinux package and it was immediately
> bounced back to the Leafnode package. What this tells me is that you
> do not wish to see this fixed in the SELinux packages but would rather
> see this fixed in the Leafnode package. Now you're telling me that
> this should, as I had originally understood, be fixed in the SELinux
> packages.
Please assign such bugs to selinux policy packages -- either
strict or targeted, at your discretion. I was not involved in pushing
the report away from selinux packages, and have not been able to pay
much attention to Debian until recently.
> Either you want me to implement SELinux support in the Leafnode
> package or you want this to be done in the SELinux packages. Which is
> the case?
Either would work.
manoj
--
HOW YOU CAN TELL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A ROTTEN DAY: 1040 Your income
tax refund cheque bounces.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
