On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 16:01 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
> >
> >> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon technique?
> >> or if my assesement is wrong... can someone point me to a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/19/2011 04:01 PM, Fulko Hew wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
>>
>>> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon
>>> technique? or if my assesement is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/19/2011 04:01 PM, Fulko Hew wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
>>
>>> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon
>>> technique? or if my assesement is
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Fulko Hew wrote:
>> %{_bindir}/chcon -t httpd_sys_script_exec_t
>> /var/www/html/nia/scripts/* 2>/dev/null
>> semanage fcontext -a -t httpd_sys_rw_content_t '/var/www/html/nia/tmp'
>> 2>/dev/null
>> restorecon
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Fulko Hew wrote:
> %{_bindir}/chcon -t httpd_sys_script_exec_t
> /var/www/html/nia/scripts/* 2>/dev/null
> semanage fcontext -a -t httpd_sys_rw_content_t '/var/www/html/nia/tmp'
> 2>/dev/null
> restorecon -v '/var/www/html/nia/tmp' 2>/dev/null
As an aside, it is
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
>
>> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon technique?
>> or if my assesement is wrong... can someone point me to a better
>> explanation/tutorial?
... snip ...
> So semanage+r
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon technique?
> or if my assesement is wrong... can someone point me to a better
> explanation/tutorial?
chcon is almost never the right way to go. It changes the file on the
FS, but it is li
Sorry for the top posting. No, chcon is not necessary in your example.
Perhaps the advice message is wrong, or it is something historical.
Hth
2011/9/19, Fulko Hew :
> I've reviewing my buildRPM spec file so that it works in newer distributions
> (currently playing with RHEL 5.6), but my question
I've reviewing my buildRPM spec file so that it works in newer distributions
(currently playing with RHEL 5.6), but my question is applicable to
Fedora xxx as well.
During the development of my package, I had encountered issues with my
build and install procedures during the slow migration/accepta
