>>>>> "JM" == James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: JM> This guideline would request that developers test their package JM> with SELinux enabled (and by this I mean in enforcing mode) and JM> follow a simple procedure: Just like the IPv6 thing, I don't think this is an appropriate topic for the packaging committee to consider. If it were in our purview, we could require that packages operate with SELinux targeted enforcing, but forcing reviewers and package maintainers to do this is a good way to make sure we have no package maintainers or reviewers (except for the ones who are paid by Red Hat, of course). I mean, FC5 as shipped won't even boot in my environment with SELinux turned on. (Yes, I reported the problems and they were quickly fixed, but that still doesn't get me a system I can boot to the point of getting updates.) So I think it's way too early to be forcing people to test with SELinux on. For Extras, an SELinux SIG would be great; they could go through and test applications, probably the server ones first. Core could of course make their own policy. It's not for the packaging committee to dictate either of those policies. Now, the packaging committee could publish guidelines for how to include SELinux rules in a package; that would be great. - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
