-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/19/2011 04:01 PM, Fulko Hew wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: >> >>> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon >>> technique? or if my assesement is wrong... can someone point me >>> to a better explanation/tutorial? > > ... snip ... > >> So semanage+restorecon == will last, chcon == will likely get >> blown away and make you angry later. > > Thanks for confirming that for me. > > Now my next issue is 'apparently' unknown contexts. > > My original RPM spec file added the 'httpd_sys_rw_content_t' > context to a directory. Which was great for the versions of Fedora > I was testing on, but now in RHEL 5.6 semanage complains with: > "type 'httpd_sys_rw_content_t' not defined." > > So it seems that my %post section of my RPM file has to either > 'know' what distribution or version of selinux support is installed > so I can avoid attempting to use types that are not defined, or > having some way of finding out what 'types' are available 'in this > OS' so that I issue the 'appropriate commands'. > > How can I find out what 'types' are available'? > > Fulko Another option would be just to request this labeling in the base package. Open a bugzilla. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk54q7YACgkQrlYvE4MpobPFYQCg4Rt/vRLN+cy25ZGdfdhmrNTC sZEAoNM1/xANhFjKkroRL2+eN5OnC4x4 =sTNx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
