On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:10:19 +0100, Václav Ovsík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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]
