On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> [..]
>
> While it appears that way, it's not actually true; RDEPEND is what the
> pkg requires to be able to be usable, not what is required to merge
> it.
> [...]
Correct, I didn't want to be so picky on the explanation.
--
Fabio Erculiani
On 12/5/11 9:42 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> For end users, this is much more enjoyable. If we load up all policies, then
> any interaction with the SELinux policies will take some time. Also, all
> policies in memory do take up some space. Finally, for development purposes,
> this is very much enjo
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:54:13AM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > In Gentoo, unlike some other distributions, we try to keep the number of
> > loaded/installed modules to a minimum so that policy rebuilds as well as the
> > system overhead is limited. This results in a "base" policy (provide
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 22:10:19 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> In this particular case the approved PMS says "In the pkg phases, at
> least one of the following conditions must be met: any command
> provided by a packaged listed in DEPEND is available; any command
> provided by a packaged listed in RDEPE
El dom, 04-12-2011 a las 17:53 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> On Sunday 04 December 2011 15:35:50 Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > Since there are quite a few packages that would need updates, I thought
> > about first mailing gentoo-dev for feedback and perhaps a first chunk of
> > work done. I also w
On 12/4/11 9:35 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Within the Gentoo Hardened project, we are working on getting the SELinux
> support into shape. Recent evolutions are the stabilization of latest upstream
> userspace utilities and policies as well as documentation improvements and
> even
> some "human r
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I haven't really understood what you mean with RDEPENDs being scheduled
> "after".
> RDEPEND must be always scheduled before the pkg requiring it, changing
> this behaviour would have disruptive effects on all the PMS out there
There is on
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:10:17PM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > [...]
> > The dependency must be on both levels, because the SELinux module must be
> > installed before the package is installed (and in theory, RDEPEND could
> > trigger a
On Sunday 04 December 2011 15:35:50 Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Since there are quite a few packages that would need updates, I thought
> about first mailing gentoo-dev for feedback and perhaps a first chunk of
> work done. I also wouldn't mind creating bugreports for each of them, but
> that would sti
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> [...]
> The dependency must be on both levels, because the SELinux module must be
> installed before the package is installed (and in theory, RDEPEND could
> trigger an installation afterwards): during the installation phase, Portage
> labels
On 04.12.2011 22:35, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Hi guys 'n gals
>
> obligatory tl;dr:
> Please check your package below this list and see if it (the package) has
> a proper DEPEND and RDEPEND on the listed sec-policy/selinux-
> package(s)
>
The list would be easier to read if it was sorted. Al
Hi guys 'n gals
obligatory tl;dr:
Please check your package below this list and see if it (the package) has
a proper DEPEND and RDEPEND on the listed sec-policy/selinux-
package(s)
Within the Gentoo Hardened project, we are working on getting the SELinux
support into shape. Recent evolutions
12 matches
Mail list logo
