On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:10:12AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 01/11/13 08:56, Timothée Ravier wrote: > > On 31/10/2013 00:36, Allan McRae wrote: > >> On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote: > >>> Only packagers will be impacted as there are still some patches needed > >>> and this could slow down 'core packages' updates when issues arise. But > >>> fixes usually comes quite quickly as both Fedora and Gentoo maintain > >>> packages with SELinux support. > >> > >> Requiring patches not accepted upstream is an immediate blocker. > > > > Sorry, I chose my words poorly. I meant two things: > > * First, patches required for SELinux should be pushed and accepted > > upstream. I don't know the current state about those. I'll post an > > update later. > > * Future core packages releases may require patches to make SELinux > > work or even make the packages build with SELinux activated. On this > > front there isn't too much to be concerned of as both Gentoo and Fedora > > SELinux folks are affected by those issues too and will surely provide > > patches which we could push upstream if necessary. > > It is completely necessary that all these patches are pushed upstream > due to the Arch patching policy. Because of this, maybe it would be best to keep this as an unofficial repository. Include all of the patched software, set up the groups, provides, conflicts, etc. correctly. The one reason I have not yet tried SELinux on my system is because of the extensive time effort it would take to keep those core system packages up to date. If there was a group of people all working on parts of an SELinux repository, then it would be much easier to maintain, update and use. Thanks, -- William Giokas | KaiSforza | http://kaictl.net/ GnuPG Key: 0x73CD09CF Fingerprint: F73F 50EF BBE2 9846 8306 E6B8 6902 06D8 73CD 09CF
Attachment:
pgpglbZkhN7fE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
