Douglas McClendon wrote:
Andrew Farris wrote:
Oh I followed your intention, I just disagree with whether that
parallel is a fair or even logical one to make about whether selinux
is *in* the official spins as opposed to *forcing* people to enable
it, which is the difference between effecting your choice or not.
No, please reread what I said.
It was never about the choice to force people to enable it.
It was about the decision to mandate that *every* official fedora spin
had it enabled by default.
I contend that that there is room for enough official spins, such that
>0 will have selinux not enabled by default.
The target of the rant was advocating that exactly 0 official fedora
spins have selinux not enabled be default.
The OP you replied to (jonez) did not mention enabling selinux, only having it.
This may be a minor semantic difference, but I see no reason why the
distribution should produce official spins without selinux *available*... I
agree there is plenty of room for a spin in which it is not enabled by default
(but I would not agree the main desktop spin is one of them). As you've already
mentioned if its that important for someone to build a custom spin with no
selinux bits on it at all, thats not exactly hard for them to do. But is there
honestly a need for Fedora to host and build it? IMO No.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> <ajfarris@xxxxxxxxx>
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
