Re: [PATCH] add selpolgen

[Karl MacMillan <kmacmillan@mentalrootkit.com>]

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 08:49 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 14:53 -0500, Karl MacMillan wrote:
>>> Stephen Smalley wrote:
>> We can follow whatever practice is normal for python modules.  However,
>> how are those usually packaged?  Separate from the application that uses
>> them?  Or together?  As it stands, this module would become a dependency
>> of audit2allow and thus of policycoreutils; is there any benefit to
>> packaging it separately?
> 
> Or conversely, we could remove audit2allow from policycoreutils and put
> it and this new python module into a single package.  It isn't as though
> audit2allow is fundamental to system operation anyway.
> 

I think that the separation is desirable and matches current python 
practice. The sepolgen module is meant to be generic and available to 
many python programs (which is why it gets installed in python 
site-packages).

I would rather break policycoreutils into multiple packages to remove 
the dependency on this for minimal installations. There is a natural 
division between system / policy management tools (e.g., restorecon, 
semanage, newrole) and policy debugging / development (audit2allow, 
audit2why, semodule_link, semodule_expand, and semodule_package).

Maybe selcoreutils (which can eventually be bundled under a single 'sel' 
command like git / svn) and policydevtools. Distros may want to further 
divide those packages into graphical and non-graphical.

Karl


--
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.