On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:04:28 +0100
Claes Gyllenswärd wrote:
> Today I tried doing a few upgrades, and among them were
> sys-libs/glibc-2.11.2-r3.
> This upgrade dies with:
> checking how to run the C preprocessor... /lib/cpp
> configure: error: in
> `/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.11.2-r3/work
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:01:26 +0100
Claes Gyllenswärd wrote:
> > Did you switch from non-multilib to multilib profile at some point?
> Not that I was aware of, but perhaps I did. There was a change in
> profiles a little while back, with the removal of 10 from their names,
> right? Maybe I picked
Hi hardened-folks
Gentoo Hardened aims to follow the Tresys reference policy closely for the
SELinux policy modules / packages and puts all non-base policies in the
sec-policy/selinux-* packages. We already had a few hints on
#gentoo-hardened about the naming conventions used for those packages.
On 02/12/2011 09:20 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Hi hardened-folks
>
> Gentoo Hardened aims to follow the Tresys reference policy closely for the
> SELinux policy modules / packages and puts all non-base policies in the
> sec-policy/selinux-* packages. We already had a few hints on
> #gentoo-harden
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 tha
On 02/12/2011 08:20 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
I rather not follow Gentoo's package names. I know it might make it easier
to deduce which sec-policy/selinux-* packages need to be installed on a
system, but this is a temporary situation - in the long term, we want all
packages that have SELinux pol
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:43:40PM -0600, Chris Richards wrote:
> TBH, I really see nothing wrong with the naming convention we are using
> now, which (AFAIK) pretty much follows the upstream module naming
> convention (which I think is what you are proposing).
Indeed; however I couldn't find
On 02/12/2011 02:03 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Indeed; however I couldn't find a post or something that reflects that we
are indeed trying to following the upstream module naming. For instance, the
packages selinux-acpi (mod=apm), selinux-courier-imap (mod=courier),
selinux-cyrus-sasl (mod=sasl),
