Re: 2.6.5-1.349 ignores selinux=0

[James Morris <jmorris redhat com>]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> What we used selinux= and enforcing= was for overriding the config
> file if you screw it up. If there's another way around this, sure.

Good point, I would also like to use selinux= for development/support
(e.g. to ensure SELinux has not been loaded at all).

Arjan, any objection to re-enabling this?


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris redhat com>