On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 23:32:02 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Julien Cristau <[email protected]> wrote: > > The lack of upgrade path and the general lack of maintenance of the > > selinux stack in squeeze inclines me towards removing this package. > > Will probably do that in a few days. > > Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm working on a new version that fixes > this and many other bugs. > > Is it too late to get a fix in Squeeze? > Depends. How soon can you have one ready, and how much churn does your new version imply?
> Going forward should I target the SE Linux policy at volatile given that any > change to a package in volatile can potentially require a change to SE Linux > policy... > Going forward volatile doesn't exist. See the 'Stable Updates and Volatile' section in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/10/msg00002.html > Apart from the policy the SE Linux stack in Squeeze is generally in pretty > good shape (apart from this and a couple of other nasty bugs that I've > already > fixed). > Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
