Hello, Lukas. Thanks for this thread. On Monday, 23 October 2017 at 17:50, Lukas Vrabec wrote: > On 10/21/2017 08:48 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: [...] > > Also, perhaps it would make sense to move to a more normal looking > > release flow instead of a massive patch? I think that might make it > > easier to see whats going on and how to contribute. > > > > This "massive" patch is here because, we diverted from Upsteam policy. > Because Upstream policy is much more strict, you cannot even boot F26+ > just with upstream policy. We confine more services then upstream and > we're more benevolent.
The usual way of doing such things is to create a fork from which patches can be merged to the original tree. Surely merging one massive patch is much more difficult than single commits or even series of commits. I assume you do have a fork of the original SELinux policy source tree somewhere, so why don't you simply ship a tarball of your fork instead of upstream+massive patch? > This should change, and we're trying to focus on technical solution > which should decrease amount of maintenance of selinux-policy. We'll > inform you about this project. If you shared more details about this effort now, you would be more likely to receive help from the community earlier. > > > Note: If you are interested in writing custom SELinux policy for your > > > package, you can follow the > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/IndependentPolicy documentation > > > on wiki. > > > > Perhaps you could submit this to the FPC and get it reviewed and moved > > under the normal packaging space? > > > > Will do. Excellent, thank you! Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
