On 09/12/2011 04:54 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: > On 09/12/2011 02:14 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >> On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: >>> Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15 >>> and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a >>> separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a >>> fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora, >>> and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into >>> Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than >>> upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it >>> being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before >>> upstream? >>> >>> Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux >> Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a >> feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the >> milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good. >> >> dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I. > Shouldn't be a big job anyway. > > I'd just posted (upstream) a patch adding support for opendkim, which > was recently introduced in Fedora, and I'd like to get that merged too. > > Paul. > -- > selinux mailing list > selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux Could you open a new bug on Fedora too. And we should take care to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged as Dan said. -- selinux mailing list selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
