Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-11-16 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 11/15/2016 11:30 AM, Jason Zaman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:01:12AM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 09:47 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>> On 11/14/2016 03:41 PM, Jason Zaman wrote: These look pretty good to me. I have written most of the ebuilds for gentoo for

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-11-15 Thread Jason Zaman
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:01:12AM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 11/15/2016 09:47 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On 11/14/2016 03:41 PM, Jason Zaman wrote: > >> These look pretty good to me. I have written most of the ebuilds for > >> gentoo for these new packages but have not committed to

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-11-15 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 11/15/2016 09:47 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 11/14/2016 03:41 PM, Jason Zaman wrote: >> These look pretty good to me. I have written most of the ebuilds for >> gentoo for these new packages but have not committed to the tree yet. >> >> There are a couple issues: >> 1) What is the license

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-11-15 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 11/14/2016 03:41 PM, Jason Zaman wrote: > These look pretty good to me. I have written most of the ebuilds for > gentoo for these new packages but have not committed to the tree yet. > > There are a couple issues: > 1) What is the license for each of the tarballs? there is no license or >

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-11-14 Thread Jason Zaman
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:42:31PM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 10/31/2016 02:05 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were > >> necessary or at least widely used in

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-11-08 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 10/31/2016 02:05 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> Hi, >> >> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >> Over time though it has grown to include many

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-11-01 Thread Daniel J Walsh
On 10/31/2016 02:05 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> Hi, >> >> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >> Over time though it has grown to include many

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-31 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 10/31/2016 02:05 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> Hi, >> >> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >> Over time though it has grown to include many

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-31 Thread Dominick Grift
On 10/31/2016 07:05 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> Hi, >> >> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >> Over time though it has grown to include many

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-31 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > Hi, > > policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were > necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. > Over time though it has grown to include many optional components, and > even within a given

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-31 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 10/31/2016 05:27 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Oct 24, 2016 3:19 PM, "Stephen Smalley" > wrote: >> We'd also need to move chcat, since it imports seobject. However, on >> that topic, is there any reason to retain chcat? It was created for the

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-31 Thread Sven Vermeulen
On Oct 24, 2016 3:19 PM, "Stephen Smalley" wrote: > We'd also need to move chcat, since it imports seobject. However, on > that topic, is there any reason to retain chcat? It was created for the > original discretionary MCS model and I'm not sure it is used anymore by >

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-24 Thread Dominick Grift
On 10/24/2016 11:15 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > On 10/24/2016 09:21 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> On 10/24/2016 09:13 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>> On 10/22/2016 09:44 AM, Chris PeBenito wrote: On 10/21/16 13:47, Stephen Smalley wrote: > policycoreutils started life as a small set

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-24 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 10/24/2016 09:13 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 10/22/2016 09:44 AM, Chris PeBenito wrote: >> On 10/21/16 13:47, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >>> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >>> Over time

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-24 Thread Dominick Grift
On 10/24/2016 03:13 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 10/22/2016 09:44 AM, Chris PeBenito wrote: >> On 10/21/16 13:47, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >>> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >>> Over time

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-24 Thread Stephen Smalley
On 10/22/2016 09:44 AM, Chris PeBenito wrote: > On 10/21/16 13:47, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >> Over time though it has grown to include many optional

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-24 Thread Sven Vermeulen
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were > necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. > Over time though it has grown to include many optional components, and > even

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-24 Thread Petr Lautrbach
On 10/21/2016 07:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > Hi, > > policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were > necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. > Over time though it has grown to include many optional components, and > even within a given

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-22 Thread Chris PeBenito
On 10/21/16 13:47, Stephen Smalley wrote: policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. Over time though it has grown to include many optional components, and even within a given subdirectory (e.g.

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-21 Thread Paul Moore
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> Hi, >> >> policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were >> necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. >> Over time though it

Re: [RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-21 Thread Daniel J Walsh
On 10/21/2016 01:47 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > Hi, > > policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were > necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. > Over time though it has grown to include many optional components, and > even within a given

[RFC] Split up policycoreutils

2016-10-21 Thread Stephen Smalley
Hi, policycoreutils started life as a small set of utilities that were necessary or at least widely used in production on a SELinux system. Over time though it has grown to include many optional components, and even within a given subdirectory (e.g. sepolicy) there seem to be a number of