On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 02:03:40PM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Robbat2 brought the naming issue up and suggested the ${CAT}-${PN}
> scheme, but you make a good point about the mapping being many-to-many
> in general.
>
> If we agree to this standard, how to we grandfather in the packages that
> are already in sec-policy? Renaming packages is a pita and we should
> avoid it if we can.
In theory, when the SELinux state is appropriate for more production-like
use, the packages are being pulled in as a dependency and not as an
emergeable package (so not "emerge selinux-gnupg" but "emerge gnupg" should
pull in the selinux- package).
As such, I think we can have the older one(s) die as long as the
dependencies on the master packages are brought up to date.
I personally dislike packages like "sec-policy/selinux-app-crypt-gnupg" if
"sec-policy/selinux-gpg" works equally well (or better), but I haven't read
the discussion on this online (just heard from others about it). I also
don't mind if general consensus is not my preference as I think it is more
important that we set a rule/guideline for the developers to follow
strictly.
Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
