On So Mai 6 2007, dragoran wrote: > but it would be better to clean up before aproving a package (if a > selinux expert is needed cc one in the review request) > we should do something like "works with selinux enforcing ->no please > fix first" during the review Please update the documentation about selinux and packaging[1] first, currently, there is not much help to allow e.g. execmod for a file in a package. Without proper documentation, your demand seems not to be very wise to me. Also does rpm not support a packager very much to use selinux afaik. When one needs two extra files and more than 15 lines of scriptlets for only making some files "textrel_shlib_t", it is not much helpful. Imho something like %textrel_shlib_t /path/to/libpackage.so in %files should be enough, because it contains all the information that is needed (the lib should have textrel_shlib_t) and everything else can be automatically. Regards, Till [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
