Bruno Haible wrote:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
"sed -i" bothers. ... hard links ... the choice
to break them or keep them must be done uniformly on all platforms
This choice has been already been made public in sed's documentation:
Yes, the reference to keeping/breaking hard links was about when I
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> "sed -i" bothers. ... hard links ... the choice
> to break them or keep them must be done uniformly on all platforms
This choice has been already been made public in sed's documentation:
"This option specifies that files are to be edited in-place. GNU
`sed' does
Jim Meyering wrote:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
...
Ok? Should I test /selinux instead of /selinux/enforce?
That would be better, since a system for which $(getenforce) reports
"Permissive", that /selinux/enforce won't exist.
It might be better still simply to see if getenforce can be run.
getenforc
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
...
>>> Ok? Should I test /selinux instead of /selinux/enforce?
>>
>> That would be better, since a system for which $(getenforce) reports
>> "Permissive", that /selinux/enforce won't exist.
>> It might be better still simply to see if getenforce can be run.
>
> getenforce is
That all looks fine, except the comment for your new function,
gl_LIBSELINUX belongs in the .m4 file, and not just in the log.
Ok.
For the log, this would then be fine:
(gl_LIBSELINUX): New function. Extracted from...
Ok? Should I test /selinux instead of /selinux/enforce?
Tha
Bruno Haible wrote:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Compiling a package without SELinux support can be a security problem.
...
I'd like to include this check in sed 4.2.1 to warn packagers about the
additional dependency.
Can you explain why 'sed' is to be bothered about selinux at all? 'sed'
does not d
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Compiling a package without SELinux support can be a security
> problem. On some distributions devel packages for libselinux have to
> be downloaded separately, and it can go unnoticed that packages have
> been configured without SELinux support.
>
> The attached patch will w
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Compiling a package without SELinux support can be a security problem.
> ...
> I'd like to include this check in sed 4.2.1 to warn packagers about the
> additional dependency.
Can you explain why 'sed' is to be bothered about selinux at all? 'sed'
does not do anything secu
Compiling a package without SELinux support can be a security problem.
On some distributions devel packages for libselinux have to be
downloaded separately, and it can go unnoticed that packages have been
configured without SELinux support.
The attached patch will warn if it finds libselinux b
