On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:22:13AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> How does stabilization proceed for selinux? Has a precedence been set?
> There's over 200 packages. It cannot be done individually.
There's no immediate planning to stabilize the packages, although I do think
we will have a sta
On 02/27/2011 10:14 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:05:28AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> Since the selinux policies come as a set with the same date as a version
>> number, wouldn't it be better to, say, remove all the 20080525 first.
>> Fix any brokenness, then deal wi
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:05:28AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Since the selinux policies come as a set with the same date as a version
> number, wouldn't it be better to, say, remove all the 20080525 first.
> Fix any brokenness, then deal with 20090730, etc until we've removed the
> sets we
On 02/27/2011 08:23 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The current sec-policy category contains many old ebuilds for old and
> obsoleted SELinux policies. In my opinion, it would be better if we purge
> them so that only those based on the 20101213 refpolicy remain (and for
> those, only a li
Hi all,
The current sec-policy category contains many old ebuilds for old and
obsoleted SELinux policies. In my opinion, it would be better if we purge
them so that only those based on the 20101213 refpolicy remain (and for
those, only a limited set).
My general idea on purging ebuilds is to drop
