From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47ED987C.8000008@manicmethod.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:16:44 -0400 From: Joshua Brindle MIME-Version: 1.0 To: russell@coker.com.au CC: Stephen Smalley , jwcart2@epoch.ncsc.mil, SE-Linux , "Christopher J. PeBenito" , Chad Sellers , Karl MacMillan Subject: Re: Debian SE Linux status References: <200803281106.47699.russell@coker.com.au> <1206711402.29088.21.camel@moss-lions.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1206712290.3302.455.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <200803291200.00643.russell@coker.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200803291200.00643.russell@coker.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Russell Coker wrote: > On Saturday 29 March 2008 00:51, Stephen Smalley wrote: > >>> Isn't that an argument for keeping non-MLS support? ;) >>> >> I don't believe that it actually does significantly increase policy >> build time (or if it does, that would be a bug). Possibly Russell just >> means that building both MLS and non-MLS takes longer, or that the mls >> modules.conf includes more modules, or something along those lines? >> > > Yes. Currently I have it building three policy packages, strict, targeted, > and mls. This takes 50% longer than just strict and targeted. But if we go > to a single policy for strict/targeted and a policy for mls then we would > have the same build times as before Strict and targeted don't mean anything anymore. If you want targeted behavior you insert the unconfined module into the standard policy. -- 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.