[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Selinux and package guidelines



On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 20:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I for one have made sure all my packages work well with selinux targeted policy 
> in enforcing mode, and I've written patches for other peoples packages too. 
> I've even written for example textrel patches for SDL, but the @redhat.com 
> maintainer doesn't want to apply them.

That's very commendable.

Are you suggesting that _everyone_ does this, and that there's no _need_
for us to say anything about SElinux in the review guidelines because
_everyone_ is already as conscientious as you?

If so, I think you're wrong -- many people, including myself, _do_ just
leave SElinux-related issues to the SElinux experts. Since you've gone
all Californian on us, I'm not going to presume to hypothesise about why
anyone else does that -- but personally I tend to dump that particular
load onto others because I lack the wit to deal with such things myself.

Alternatively, if you're just pointing out that you _personally_ are a
lot more conscientious than many others, then I'm not sure I see the
relevance. Would you suggest that we abandon the guidelines and the
review process altogether, just because _some_ people like yourself get
everything right first time anyway?

So I'm confused -- what _is_ the point you're trying to make, and how
does it relate to "dragoran"'s suggestion that we add something about
SElinux to the review guidelines?

> So in the future please refrain from such generalisms, an show some respect, or 
> even better show others the respect you expect them to show for you.

You seem to be picking holes in terminology and making invalid
assumptions about my feelings, instead of talking about the issue at
hand. Please don't.

-- 
dwmw2


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]