From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mummy.ncsc.mil (mummy.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.129]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8QBt5rT027002 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from open.hands.com (jazzhorn.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.9]) by mummy.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8QBs376012499 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:54:03 GMT Received: from lkcl.net (host81-152-10-162.range81-152.btcentralplus.com [81.152.10.162]) by open.hands.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA596C0D5 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:54:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from lkcl by lkcl.net with local (Exim 4.24) id 1CBXn6-0007CY-9p for selinux@tycho.nsa.gov; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:06:08 +0100 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:06:08 +0100 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton To: SE-Linux Subject: udev_uses_tmpfs Message-ID: <20040926120608.GG26338@lkcl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov examining the latest cvs policy i find that there is a whole stack-load of assumptions that only redhat can do udev in tmpfs. can i suggest that this be specified as a tunable "udev_uses_tmpfs" instead? if there are _really_ some redhat-specific things such as "only redhat does udev+tmpfs from its initial ramdisk" then fine. irrespective of whether people like the above suggestion, it's what i have to do. as a tunable would be better: some debian systems use udev, some don't use initrd. l. -- -- Truth, honesty and respect are rare commodities that all spring from the same well: Love. If you love yourself and everyone and everything around you, funnily and coincidentally enough, life gets a lot better. -- lkcl.net
lkcl@lkcl.net
-- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.