Am 2007-09-22 00:00:09, schrieb Mumia W..:
> It probably is good technology. But I think it should be good
> technology--elsewhere.
>
> Including SElinux in Debian is not like including tuxracer. Too much of
> the core security parts of Debian have to be changed to accommodate SElinux.
>
> If I
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:10:50 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Manoj,
> /selinux is like /proc; the contents are created by the
> kernel. The selinuxfs support in the kernel is not enabled by the
> default grub menu.lst; hence the mount fails.
Thanks for the explan
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:14:26 +0100, Brad Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:09:39 -0400
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Joey,
>> He's referring to #328474. It's mostly just ugly, there's no
>> appreciable overhead.
> True, although /selinux does exist on m
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:09:39 -0400
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Joey,
> He's referring to #328474. It's mostly just ugly, there's no
> appreciable overhead.
True, although /selinux does exist on my system, it's empty, hence the
warning during the boot process. Now, if only I knew
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:45:18 +1000, Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Why not make a different section on the normal stable / testing /
> unstable streams. so non-free contrib and selinux place all the
> selinux patch stuff under there ?
Firstly, contrib and non-free are not part o
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Can you elaborate? If possible, this should be either fixed, or
> the warning eliminated as nominal operation.
He's referring to #328474. It's mostly just ugly, there's no appreciable
overhead.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 02:56:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:06:11 +0900, Takehiko Abe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> That is not the case. All core libraries and packages have already
> >> been patched and are functional in Etch. You d
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:06:11 +0900, Takehiko Abe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> That is not the case. All core libraries and packages have already
>> been patched and are functional in Etch. You did not even notice it,
>> because they are optional.
> libselinux and libse
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:34:21 +0100, Brad Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:35:25 -0400
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Joey,
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82K Jul 10 14:11 /lib/libselinux.so.1 If
>> you're worried by this amount of space use, you probably have
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Takehiko Abe wrote:
>> Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> That is naive, is it not? The apps themselves have to be SELinux-
>>> aware. So, one can remove the policy packages, but not SELinux.
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82K Jul 10 14:11 /lib/libselinux.so.1
>> If you're worried by this amou
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:35:25 -0400
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Joey,
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82K Jul 10 14:11 /lib/libselinux.so.1
> If you're worried by this amount of space use, you probably have much
> larger problems than SE Linux.
There's more to it than that; Here, part o
Joey Hess wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
That is naive, is it not? The apps themselves have to be SELinux-
aware. So, one can remove the policy packages, but not SELinux.
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82K Jul 10 14:11 /lib/libselinux.so.1
If you're worried by this amount of space use, you probably have
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
That is not the case. All core libraries and packages have
already been patched and are functional in Etch. You did not even
notice it, because they are optional.
libselinux and libsepol are required and are not optional.
I bet that selinux is of no use for
Mike McCarty wrote:
> That is naive, is it not? The apps themselves have to be SELinux-
> aware. So, one can remove the policy packages, but not SELinux.
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82K Jul 10 14:11 /lib/libselinux.so.1
If you're worried by this amount of space use, you probably have much
larger probl
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 05:36:35PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:14:29 -0500, Mumia W
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I concur. From what I've read, selinux seems complicated and
> > Linux-contorting enough to be placed at Debian's periphery--if not
> > outside of the
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:32:22 -0500, Mumia W
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 09/21/2007 09:20 PM, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>> I, for one, would specifically ask that it NOT be a standard feature,
>> so please, if it's to be offered at all, make it optional. I would
>> hate one day to find, after d
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:00:09 -0500, Mumia W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 09/21/2007 10:15 PM, Andrew J. Barr wrote:
>> On 9/21/07, Kelly Clowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 9/21/07, Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why is selinux in Debian at all?
Have any users asked
On 09/21/2007 10:15 PM, Andrew J. Barr wrote:
On 9/21/07, Kelly Clowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/21/07, Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why is selinux in Debian at all?
Have any users asked for it?
I don't know, but if it wasn't in Debian, I would ask for it.
I don't get why peop
Apologies - I meant to reply to the list with this and forgot that gmail
behaves badly!
Patrick
On 9/21/07, Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/21/07, Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/21/2007 05:36 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:14:29 -0
On 09/21/2007 09:20 PM, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
On 9/21/07, Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 09/21/2007 05:36 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:14:29 -0500, Mumia W
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I concur. From what I've read, selinux seems complicated and
Linux-contorting e
On 9/21/07, Kelly Clowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is selinux in Debian at all?
> >
> > Have any users asked for it?
>
> I don't know, but if it wasn't in Debian, I would ask for it.
>
> I don't get why people seem to think SELinux is a b
On 9/21/07, Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is selinux in Debian at all?
>
> Have any users asked for it?
I don't know, but if it wasn't in Debian, I would ask for it.
I don't get why people seem to think SELinux is a bad thing.
Cheers,
Kelly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
On 09/21/2007 05:36 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:14:29 -0500, Mumia W
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I concur. From what I've read, selinux seems complicated and
Linux-contorting enough to be placed at Debian's periphery--if not
outside of the perimeter altogether.
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:14:29 -0500, Mumia W
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I concur. From what I've read, selinux seems complicated and
> Linux-contorting enough to be placed at Debian's periphery--if not
> outside of the perimeter altogether.
I am trying to make SELinux disappear -- back
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:08:08 -0400, Neil Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:49:08PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> SE Linux is already included in Debian, and is even installed, though
>> not enabled, by default. You can remove the selinux-policy-* packages
>> to remove it.
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:51:16 -0400, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:19:40AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Joey Hess wrote:
>>> SE Linux is already included in Debian, and is even installed,
>>> though not enabled, by default. You can remove the selinux-policy-*
>
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:49:08PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
SE Linux is already included in Debian, and is even installed, though
not enabled, by default. You can remove the selinux-policy-* packages to
remove it.
It is included but, during my testing enabling SElinux disabled many
things (e.g G
Kevin Mark wrote:
The extent to which SELinux 'infests' Debian is a minor one. For proper
SELinux support you only have to alter a handful of basic packages and
the kernel, so that's like .001% of its packages.
but it runs deep. those handful are required packages.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:19:40AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
>> SE Linux is already included in Debian, and is even installed, though
>> not enabled, by default. You can remove the selinux-policy-* packages to
>> remove it.
>
> That is naive, is it not? The apps themselves have
On 09/20/2007 10:39 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
May I suggest to the Debian developers that, should they
contemplate including SELinux into Debian, they not follow
Red Hat's decision to make it a fixed part of the distro,
which can be disabled, but rather continue to provide a
version of the distro w
Joey Hess wrote:
SE Linux is already included in Debian, and is even installed, though
not enabled, by default. You can remove the selinux-policy-* packages to
remove it.
That is naive, is it not? The apps themselves have to be SELinux-
aware. So, one can remove the policy packages, but not S
Mike McCarty wrote:
> May I suggest to the Debian developers that, should they
> contemplate including SELinux into Debian, they not follow
> Red Hat's decision to make it a fixed part of the distro,
> which can be disabled, but rather continue to provide a
> version of the distro which just does n
32 matches
Mail list logo
