Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:17:55PM -0600, Douglas McClendon wrote:yes please. Rationalizing and well-defining @core and @base sounds great to me :) I mean, if there is a rational reason why selinux policy should be explicitly listed in those, then fine, but I haven't heard the reason yet, just the fact.With those lists in hand, we could work on rationalizing @core and @base (because they're not really well-defined) and perhaps collapse them into one group.I think a rational split is:You have the right idea, but Base and Core backwards. And really,
and right there is part of the problem. The absolute minimum maintainable set should be "minimum."It needs a text editor, and the one history tells us should be there is vi (not that johnny-come-lately nano that some install).
I don't care whether the practical minimum is "base" or "core," and I think I'm not alone in being unable to see the difference between the terms.
-- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa coco merseine nu Z1aaaaaaa coco merseine nu -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-)