On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 16:01 -0400, 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'? seinfo -t -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
