On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:54:47 +0100, Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi Mark,
>> fixed in the Leafnode package. Now you're telling me that this
>> should, as I had originally understood, be fixed in the SELinux
>> packages.
> It requires knowledge of leafnode to be fixed. Ideally, it would be
> fixed within the leafnode package, albeit it's more realistically and
> practicably to do it in the refpolicy package (at least when you
> submit the module upstream and they include it - we don't really want
> to have two different versions of the policy module unless there is a
> good reason to do so!)
I, as the debian package maintainer, can mediate for our users,
and push policy upstream as well. Assuming, that is, that I am around
-- which I have not been recently. But in general, filing a bug
against the refpolicy packages would not be wrong.
manoj
--
Hummingbirds never remember the words to songs.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
