On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 08:03 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 13:39 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > Paul Howarth wrote: > > > Stephen Smalley wrote: > > >> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 17:33 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > >>> It contains a policy module, but the module only includes file contexts. > > >> > > >> If this is going to be common, then semodule_package and libsemanage > > >> need to allow for policy packages that have no policy module. [cut] > - Cleanly supporting policy packages that do not include a binary policy > module in the tools (e.g. semodule_package) and libraries (e.g. > libsemanage, libsepol), so that they can be used to ship just file > contexts or other components. I don't know of any work in progress yet > on that issue, so it may make sense to bugzilla it, although it is > really an upstream issue, and there isn't presently an upstream bugzilla > for selinux (just the mailing list). I was looking at what it would take to support a package without a module. Without the binary policy, there is one problem of where the module name and version will come from. We could either add this to the package itself (which would require a policy package format change), or add a section to the package for module name and version (which seems like a hack to me). More importantly, I believe a package without a module does not make sense because the types and users used in the file contexts should either be declared or required by the module in the package. Otherwise the transaction fails late when the file contexts are validated, rather than early during linking. -- Chris PeBenito Tresys Technology, LLC (410) 290-1411 x150 -- fedora-selinux-list mailing list fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
