Your message dated Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:45:45 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: status of refpolicy?
has caused the Debian Bug report #390648,
regarding FTBFS: will not create hard link
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
390648: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390648
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: selinux-policy-default
Version: 1:1.26-7
Severity: serious
Your package fails to build from source, in the binary phase:
fakeroot debian/rules binary
dh_testdir
dh_testroot
dh_clean -k
dh_installdirs
# Add here commands to install the package into debian/tmp
install -m 644 appconfig/* debian/selinux-policy-default/etc/selinux/contexts
install -m 644 debian/sel-config
debian/selinux-policy-default/etc/selinux/config
cp -r [M-Z]* *.te constraints domains file_contexts flask fs_use
genfs_contexts initial_sid_contexts macros mls net_contexts rbac types users
tunables debian/selinux-policy-default/usr/share/selinux/policy/default
cp: will not create hard link
«debian/selinux-policy-default/usr/share/selinux/policy/default/macros» to
directory
«debian/selinux-policy-default/usr/share/selinux/policy/default/macros»
cp: warning: source file «mls» specified more than once
cp: warning: source file «net_contexts» specified more than once
cp: warning: source file «rbac» specified more than once
cp: will not create hard link
«debian/selinux-policy-default/usr/share/selinux/policy/default/types» to
directory «debian/selinux-policy-default/usr/share/selinux/policy/default/types»
cp: warning: source file «users» specified more than once
cp: will not create hard link
«debian/selinux-policy-default/usr/share/selinux/policy/default/tunables» to
directory
«debian/selinux-policy-default/usr/share/selinux/policy/default/tunables»
make: *** [binary-indep] Error 1
debuild: fatal error at line 1224:
fakeroot debian/rules binary failed
Is this package even useful anymore? I hear rumours that it's being obsoleted...
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1,
'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-rc5
Locale: LANG=nb_NO.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nb_NO.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages selinux-policy-default depends on:
ii checkpolicy 1.30.11-2 SELinux policy compiler
ii libpam-modules 0.79-3.2 Pluggable Authentication Modules f
ii libselinux1 1.30.28-2 SELinux shared libraries
ii m4 1.4.7-1 a macro processing language
ii make 3.81-3 The GNU version of the "make" util
ii policycoreutils 1.30.29-1 SELinux core policy utilities
ii python 2.4.3-11 An interactive high-level object-o
selinux-policy-default recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2:0.0.20080702-1
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:19:27 +0200, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 386168 fails to configure when the running kernel has no SELinux
> support
This is a binary package that was produced from a different
source package. There is no indication that the current default policy
fails to configure for machines where selinux is not enabled.
> 390648 FTBFS: will not create hard link
This refers to a binary created by the old, now obsolete,
version of the package. That version was not created from the refpolicy
source package, and used debhelper, which the new versions do not.
> 431944 selinux-policy-default: fails to install: prompts for config
> change
Same here. This is not relevant for the new
selinux-policy-default package.
> in between the bugs, there are mentions of refpolicy being obsolete,
> but that information might itself be obsolete given that Russel
> updated the package quite recently.
> Can any of you shed some light on the status of these bugs and, in
> particular, the question of obsoleteness?
The binary package went through a period of being deprecated,
and now has been resurrected, from a different source package.
I'll look into the other bugs on these packages (the non-RC ones)
manoj
--
Women who want to be equal to men lack imagination.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--- End Message ---
