On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Paul Moore wrote:
> > So, patch 2/2 should go in on it's own against upstream? If so, in 5B
> > future, please post such patches separately.
>
> Yes, please commit patch 2/2 regardless as it fixes a bug which is not
> dependent on any of the secid patches which are being disc
Venkat Yekkirala wrote:
>>>As for the rest of the network labeling, please work
>>
>>together with Venkat
>>
>>>and the SELinux developers on a final patchset which meets
>>
>>all of the
>>
>>>design goals and has been tested, with policy which has been merged
>>>upstream and is available via
> > As for the rest of the network labeling, please work
> together with Venkat
> > and the SELinux developers on a final patchset which meets
> all of the
> > design goals and has been tested, with policy which has been merged
> > upstream and is available via Fedora devel. Please keep
> th
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This patchset includes an update to the NetLabel/secid-reconciliation patch,
> replacing my "v3" patch from earlier this week, and a bugfix patch to cure a
> race condition found during testing this week. The bugfix patch does not
> rely on the secid
James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>This patchset includes an update to the NetLabel/secid-reconciliation patch,
>>replacing my "v3" patch from earlier this week, and a bugfix patch to cure a
>>race condition found during testing this week. The bugfix patch does
This patchset includes an update to the NetLabel/secid-reconciliation patch,
replacing my "v3" patch from earlier this week, and a bugfix patch to cure a
race condition found during testing this week. The bugfix patch does not
rely on the secid patches and should be merged regardless as it fixes a
