From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43579792.4070105@tresys.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:11:46 -0400 From: Joshua Brindle MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Smalley CC: SELinux-dev@tresys.com, Russell Coker , Daniel J Walsh , Karl MacMillan , SELinux List Subject: Re: [RFC] sectioned package format References: <1129748381.15338.20.camel@twoface.columbia.tresys.com> <1129811174.2375.333.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> In-Reply-To: <1129811174.2375.333.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 14:59 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote: > >>This is our proposal for sectioned package formats, it addresses the >>issues brought up on the fedora-selinux list and the selinux list. It >>allows for forward/backward compatibility by being able to skip unknown >>sections. It also allows for 'fat' packages, which may contain modules >>for multiple distributions, targeted/strict/MLS, and so on within the >>same package. We believe this format is extensible and fairly future >>proof, please give us feedback so that we can start implementing this. > > > Do we think that these "fat" module packages will actually be used in > practice, or that people will just build separate module packages for > the variants? BTW, possible point of confusion due to overloaded > terminology: "module package" is not related to a traditional Linux > "package" (i.e. something managed by rpm or dpkg), so a traditional > "package" could contain multiple "module packages". > Fair enough. This idea may be a little over engineered, we'll think about the problem some more and send something simpler for comments today or tomorrow. -- 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.