On 09/13/2011 06:31 AM, Miroslav Grepl wrote: > 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. Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737992 Cheers, Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
