SE Linux installer changes needed - was Re: /etc/ld.so.cache and FC4T3

[Stephen Smalley]

On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 13:36 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> Why can't the glibc package provide a ld.so.cache which simply indicates
> no libraries?  This seems more correct to me, especially as it claims
> ownership of the file.

That won't help if ldconfig re-creates the file each time (vs. just
rewriting the existing file in place), as the new file would still be
labeled in accordance with the default behavior unless ldconfig were
modified.  But in any event, it sounds like we need to determine why
ldconfig isn't running the proper domain, as that would suffice to
ensuring that ld.so.cache is labeled properly.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency