On 01/05/2011 08:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 1/5/2011 12:57 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >> >> man apache_selinux >> ... > > $ man apache_selinux > No manual entry for apache_selinux > > ???? - and I assume you wrote it... > man httpd_selinux -- Athmane Madjoudj _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- From: Athmane Madjoudj <athmanem@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:14:16 +0100
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <4D24C226.4070302@xxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Linux Thunderbird/3.1.7
- References:
- Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- From: m . roth
- Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- From: Lamar Owen
- Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- From: Stephen Harris
- Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- From: Paul Johnson
- Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- From: Daniel J Walsh
- Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- From: Les Mikesell
- Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- Prev by Date: Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- Next by Date: fstab multiple line entries?
- Previous by thread: Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- Next by thread: Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!
- Index(es):
 |