On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 20:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > I for one have made sure all my packages work well with selinux targeted policy > in enforcing mode, and I've written patches for other peoples packages too. > I've even written for example textrel patches for SDL, but the @redhat.com > maintainer doesn't want to apply them. That's very commendable. Are you suggesting that _everyone_ does this, and that there's no _need_ for us to say anything about SElinux in the review guidelines because _everyone_ is already as conscientious as you? If so, I think you're wrong -- many people, including myself, _do_ just leave SElinux-related issues to the SElinux experts. Since you've gone all Californian on us, I'm not going to presume to hypothesise about why anyone else does that -- but personally I tend to dump that particular load onto others because I lack the wit to deal with such things myself. Alternatively, if you're just pointing out that you _personally_ are a lot more conscientious than many others, then I'm not sure I see the relevance. Would you suggest that we abandon the guidelines and the review process altogether, just because _some_ people like yourself get everything right first time anyway? So I'm confused -- what _is_ the point you're trying to make, and how does it relate to "dragoran"'s suggestion that we add something about SElinux to the review guidelines? > So in the future please refrain from such generalisms, an show some respect, or > even better show others the respect you expect them to show for you. You seem to be picking holes in terminology and making invalid assumptions about my feelings, instead of talking about the issue at hand. Please don't. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
