From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov [63.239.67.1]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9LGuIw7029640 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:18 -0400 Received: from mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n9LGtOih019107 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:55:24 GMT Received: from srv.laga.pri (ool-43568f33.dyn.optonline.net [67.86.143.51]) by mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTP id <0KRV00DW5J1QT1E0@mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for selinux@tycho.nsa.gov; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv.laga.pri (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B7E1B42002 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from srv.laga.pri ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv.laga.pri [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11501-04 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv.laga.pri (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22891B42003 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [164.55.144.109] (unknown [164.55.254.106]) by srv.laga.pri (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C6E1B42002 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:56:12 -0400 From: Eric Laganowski Subject: Re: 'make policy' issues In-reply-to: <87hbtsvhru.fsf@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> To: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Message-id: <4ADF3D2C.2030408@laganowski.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed References: <4ADF2358.4050606@laganowski.net> <1256138160.4061.200.camel@moss-pluto.epoch.ncsc.mil> <4ADF2663.2030105@laganowski.net> <1256138950.4061.206.camel@moss-pluto.epoch.ncsc.mil> <87hbtsvhru.fsf@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21 2009, Stephen Smalley wrote: > >>> Re flex: What is the requirement for flex from selinux perspective? Is >>> it known what build of flex is "known good"? >>> >> My impression is that one of the patches carried by the distributions >> for flex is needed for checkpolicy to work, but no one has ever fully >> investigated the precise dependency - people just grab the Fedora srpm >> and apply those patches to flex, and then rebuild checkpolicy and it >> works. I haven't seen any complaints from Debian or Gentoo so I presume >> that they also carry the same patches for flex. >> >> flex -V here also shows 2.5.35. But there are three patches in the >> Fedora package. Attached. >> > > Debian currently carries 13 (though 3 of them need to be > squashed together) patches against 2.5.35. I can make them available if > there is interest. > > manoj > Yes please. Patches would be welcome. -Eric -- 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.