On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:52 PM Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:46 PM William Roberts > <bill.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:44 AM Stephen Smalley > > <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:22 PM William Roberts > > > <bill.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > This PR: > > > > https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux/pull/193 > > > > > > > > Has been sitting forever. I looked through the mailing list and didn't > > > > see any patches hit the list, > > > > we should either close it, or merge it. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? If we need it to hit the list, can I grab it and sign-off on > > > > it and post it? > > > > > > You can't sign-off on someone else's patch without them first signing off on it > > > or otherwise certifying to you that it falls under clauses (a), (b), > > > or (c) of the DCO. > > > > For some reason I just assumed it had a signed-off line, it doesn't though. > > > > > You could create your own patch to achieve the same end, especially > > > since this one is trivial and seems > > > to be modeled after an existing commit, > > > ab0e27003ef245f20512d1808b1dfee662ab8f41, so it > > > seems like it is relatively safe. > > > > I thought about creating it, but it's like how do I create such a trivial patch > > and not get hit with I copied it. > > IANAL, but IIUC when something can only be done one way, it isn't copyrightable. > Other possible ways to differentiate: > - libselinux/src/Makefile provides a FTS_LDLIBS ?= definition, which > was missing from their patch. > Not sure that matters. > - Instead of adding it LDLIBS for everything, could just add it where > needed, similar to PCRE_LDLIBS. Or you could just ping them on the github issue and ask if they will at least certify to the DCO as a github comment (or better, push a revised commit with sign-off) and then you can take it from there.
