Re: [ SEMANAGE ] Stub pserver backend

[Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2@cornell.edu>]

>
>> I'd prefer to wait until we have a basic working implementation and a
>> user ready for merging.  Posting stubs or function prototypes to the
>> list as examples is fine, but I don't see much value in merging them.
>> It was ok for early development of libsemanage in order to build up
>> infrastructure and allow early collaboration/feedback, but I'd prefer to
>> move to merging actual implementations now.  I'd especially like to see
>> sample users (even just dummy test programs) that allow the code to be
>> trivially exercised along with the submissions to help put it in
>> context.
>>     
Ok, in that case disregard the last two patches - I will resend those 
with implementation.
>
> Also, I think we need to think about priorities of tasks; policy server
> backend and runtime boolean manipulation via libsemanage seem fairly low
> to me right now.  Of greater importance would be:
>   
Sure, but stubs are easy to write - just wanted to point to where the 
functionality should go into.
The rest of the things you specified are important, but a bit harder to 
do... not disregarding the issues.
> - Finishing the ports functionality and exporting those interfaces,
>   
I think this is of particularly high importance to Dan - I'll have to 
work on that soon.

> - Creating utilities for managing the other policy components via
> libsemanage.
>   
What would all those utilities look like - shell? python with GUI? 
should I be working on those - Dan?


--
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.