Dne Pá 1. listopadu 2013 20.10:12, Timothée Ravier napsal(a):
> Hi Nicky,
>
> On 01/11/2013 10:36, Nicky726 wrote:
> > First of all, since I have been very busy lately, I didn't have time to
> > keep the AUR packages up-to-date, and the prospects in the near future
> > don't look very good... So,
Hi Nicky,
On 01/11/2013 10:36, Nicky726 wrote:
> First of all, since I have been very busy lately, I didn't have time to keep
> the AUR packages up-to-date, and the prospects in the near future don't look
> very good... So, if there is a willing hand among you, I can pass the
> maintanence to y
Hello, guys,
I noticed this discussion about SELinux just now... as a current maintainer of
SELinux packages in the AUR, let me react.
First of all, since I have been very busy lately, I didn't have time to keep
the AUR packages up-to-date, and the prospects in the near future don't look
very
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering whether there was ever an actual discussion regarding the
> SELinux support within Arch. I could only find a bug report from
> September 2012 (see [1]), which was closed by Dave Reisner with kind of
> a lame comment: "A
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:10:12AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 01/11/13 08:56, Timothée Ravier wrote:
> > On 31/10/2013 00:36, Allan McRae wrote:
> >> On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote:
> >>> Only packagers will be impacted as there are still some patches needed
> >>> and this could slow
On 01/11/13 08:56, Timothée Ravier wrote:
> On 31/10/2013 00:36, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote:
>>> Only packagers will be impacted as there are still some patches needed
>>> and this could slow down 'core packages' updates when issues arise. But
>>> fixes usually c
On 31/10/2013 18:49, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> Indeed, we've had AppArmor for over a year now, yet entire related userspace
> is in AUR, and all profiles have to be hand-written or adapted from OpenSuse
> or Ubuntu ones...
I wasn't aware of that, thanks for pointing it.
Well then I guess simply enabl
On 31/10/2013 00:36, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote:
>> Only packagers will be impacted as there are still some patches needed
>> and this could slow down 'core packages' updates when issues arise. But
>> fixes usually comes quite quickly as both Fedora and Gentoo mai
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:29:32 +0100
Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 10/31/13 at 09:36am, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote:
> > > On 29/10/2013 01:21, Allan McRae wrote:
> > >> I'd suggest that someone maintains an unofficial repo with all the
> > >> packages required t
Am Do 31 Okt 2013 11:29:32 CET schrieb Jelle van der Waa:
On 10/31/13 at 09:36am, Allan McRae wrote:
On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote:
On 29/10/2013 01:21, Allan McRae wrote:
I'd suggest that someone maintains an unofficial repo with all the
packages required to set this up to prove th
On 10/31/13 at 09:36am, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote:
> > On 29/10/2013 01:21, Allan McRae wrote:
> >> I'd suggest that someone maintains an unofficial repo with all the
> >> packages required to set this up to prove the work required for
> >> continual maintenance
I noticed that you guys are discusing about SeLinux, so I find a link,
maybe can by helpful in a minimal way or in the way
[1]
http://www.jamesthebard.net/site/archlinux-selinux-and-you-a-trip-down-the-rabbit-hole/
--
*Pablo Lezaeta*.
On 31/10/13 09:36, Timothée Ravier wrote:
> On 29/10/2013 01:21, Allan McRae wrote:
>> I'd suggest that someone maintains an unofficial repo with all the
>> packages required to set this up to prove the work required for
>> continual maintenance of this has been done. Then requests could be
>> mad
On 29/10/2013 01:21, Allan McRae wrote:
> I'd suggest that someone maintains an unofficial repo with all the
> packages required to set this up to prove the work required for
> continual maintenance of this has been done. Then requests could be
> made to (e.g.) add support to the kernel, providing
>
> The first answer that i can think is the patches needed on many packages to
> support selinux.
>
In the CentOS world, SELinux is a standard feature and there are a lot of
command line tools that contain extra command options to access and modify
SELinux contexts. For example, here is a snippe
The first answer that i can think is the patches needed on many packages to
support selinux. Is not only that you have to enable a config on the
kernel, you have to maintain the patches on for the each of the packages,
and that maybe will hold you from keeping things KISS and following
upstream.
T
On 29/10/13 09:39, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering whether there was ever an actual discussion regarding the
> SELinux support within Arch. I could only find a bug report from
> September 2012 (see [1]), which was closed by Dave Reisner with kind of
> a lame comment: "A million times
Hi,
I'm wondering whether there was ever an actual discussion regarding the
SELinux support within Arch. I could only find a bug report from
September 2012 (see [1]), which was closed by Dave Reisner with kind of
a lame comment: "A million times no.".
After having dealt with SELinux on a couple o
18 matches
Mail list logo
