On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 15:40 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Härdeman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:59:40PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > >> Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 19:44 +0200, David Härdeman wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:13:03PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > >>>>> David Härdeman wrote: > >>>>>> While working on SELinux-enabling a Debian system, I often Google for > >>>>>> avc messages that show up in dmesg and 90% of the time it seems > >>>>>> that the > >>>>>> problem has already been solved in Fedora's version of the > >>>>>> refpolicy but > >>>>>> not in the upstream version. > >>>> ... > >>>>>> The question is how to treat the patches after that? Should I post > >>>>>> them > >>>>>> as I go through them (a couple per day for a couple of weeks?) and > >>>>>> hope > >>>>>> that someone at Tresys will apply them? > >>> [...] > >>>> I guess what I'm really wondering is if I can help you in some way? > >>> > >>> The main points which would improve upstreaming efficiency from Dan's > >>> set are: > >>> > >>> 1. description / justification > > ... > >>> 2. style > > ... > >>> 3. patch composition > > ... > > > > Basically all three requirements are the same as the general rules that > > apply for patch submissions to the linux-kernel mailing list (or to any > > well-behaved OSS project). > > > >> And the problem I have with all of these is volume of change. When a > >> new release goes out and a whole bunch of new users start using SELinux > >> the volume of bugzillas generated is use. My first responsibility is to > >> get SELinux fixed for these users. > > > > I can't imagine that a one-line commit comment would be an overwhelming > > burden when committing a couple of lines of policy changes? Heck, most > > maintainers should welcome it as it serves as a support for their own > > memory as well...I mean, most of these issues aren't exactly new for > > FOSS projects and SCM repos is the best answer people have come up with > > so far... > > > >> Marking up the policy with lots of > >> bugzilla's or justifications is both time consuming and I believe just > >> dirties the policy. > > > > Comments about patches are generally carried as commit messages and not > > inline. I don't see how it would dirty any policy. And in-line comments > > for unconventional changes I'd see not as "dirty" but as a great help to > > the person reading through the policy (I've already had a few "huh?" > > moments when reading through the RedHat patch, and that's not because > > they are bad in any way, its because its inevitable without the proper > > context). > > > >> In the more bizarre categories that should be > >> required. My goal is to get the non-bizarre changes upstreamed so we > >> could concentrate on the bizarre ones and either justify or remove them. > > > > The question is if it's even possible to hunt down the original > > explanation for the bizarre ones after a few hundred of them have > > accumulated and they have been obscured by the passing of time? > > > >> Changes like adding fs_list_inotify should just get into the upstream. > > > > I realize I'm stepping into a debate which is somewhat over my head > > here, but couldn't Tresys arrange so that you get direct commit access, > > then you could commit trivial patches directly and send more > > unconventional ones to the list for discussion? > > > > Or alternatively...perhaps a shadow branch could be setup where the > > commit rules would be more lax and then the changes could be synced over > > at intervals... > > > > (Or even better, everything could be done via git...but that's a > > pipedream at this stage) :) > > > All of these suggestions are fine and yes if we had to do it all over > again, every change would be documented with links to bugzilla.emails, > conversations in the hall. I am looking for help to get it better under > control. I am not looking for direct commit, or at least a commit via > an ack process. > > Patches have been sent up stream in the past that have got lost in the > volume of work that Chris has to do. Not his fault. But we have a > system where we have only one person whose primary job is not to check > in policy patches, having to review every patch. And we have the person > generating most of the policy falling further and further behind. While > the kernel has teams of engineers working on patches, reviewing them and > applying them. They also have people who just cherry pick obvious fixes > and apply them. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkh+TqwACgkQrlYvE4MpobPhCACg4Mw87YU6lUR5HsuIjmKADWFE > 8PAAoMD+5BGOHYlPaGULJ4apbpIVRwPL > =Rz61 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > What this tells me is that the reference policy has grown beyond the ability of one person to maintain it. Perhaps it's time to add another maintainer? If this means that Tresys isn't the appropriate place to host the reference policy, perhaps a new host needs to be found as well. To be honest, from my perspective as an SELinux consumer and long-time follower of this list, it seems to me that Fedora's policy is very nearly becoming the de facto reference policy just by virtue of its more active development. Perhaps it's time to think about moving the reference policy hosting back to sourceforge, or even to fedorahosted? _______________________________ Brett Lentz | CarDomain Network System Administrator blentz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | tel 206.926.2109 | cell 206.851.6669 http://www.cardomain.com/id/wakko666 Weiler's Law: Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
