From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from goalie.tycho.ncsc.mil (goalie [144.51.3.250]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9CEWFkK013906 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:32:18 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f181.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msux-gh1-uea02.nsa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o9CEWH64000508 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:32:17 GMT Received: by pxi15 with SMTP id 15so443889pxi.12 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CB47175.6020302@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:32:21 -0700 From: "Justin P. Mattock" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Smalley CC: SE-Linux , tresys Subject: Re: ERROR 'syntax error' at token ':c' on line 42: References:

In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090400070909060002030308" Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090400070909060002030308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/12/2010 04:39 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > Looks like the previously discussed flex bug, e.g.: > http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=126763385807985&w=2 > yeah I was thinking this as well.. from what it seems this is hitting with the packages provided by suse, as well as the userspace packages. but unlike my other system that was hitting this, the error is with building a module, instead of building the policy.(as a workaround I would throw in an older version of flex, then build only checkpolicy/module to get it working..(or if I was too lazy just copy a version that works over to the other machine)). I can go through this today and see what I get.. one thing I noticed with the packages from suse(11.4) is, policycoreutils is older than same of the newer packages they have, causing other errors with python i.e. seinfo not found kind of error. As for flex itself.. I do remember starting a bisect on that package, but then realized that from version 2.34(if I remember correctly) to 2.35 theirs just a few patches that are rather lengthy, making a bisect possible, but then going through the bad commit more lengthy... Justin P. Mattock --------------090400070909060002030308 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/12/2010 04:39 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:

Looks like the previously discussed flex bug, e.g.:
http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=126763385807985&w=2

yeah I was thinking this as well.. from what it seems this is hitting with the
packages provided by suse, as well as the userspace packages. but unlike
my other system that was hitting this, the error is with building a module, instead of building
the policy.(as a workaround I would throw in an older version of flex, then build only
checkpolicy/module to get it working..(or if I was too lazy just copy a version that
works over to the other machine)).

I can go through this today and see what I get.. one thing I noticed with the packages
from suse(11.4) is, policycoreutils is older than same of the newer packages they have,
causing other errors with python i.e. seinfo not found kind of error.

As for flex itself.. I do remember starting a bisect on that package, but then realized
that from version 2.34(if I remember correctly) to 2.35 theirs just a few patches that
are rather lengthy, making a bisect possible, but then going through the bad commit
more lengthy...

Justin P. Mattock

--------------090400070909060002030308-- -- 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: justinmattock@gmail.com (Justin P. Mattock) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:32:21 -0700 Subject: [refpolicy] ERROR 'syntax error' at token ':c' on line 42: In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <4CB47175.6020302@gmail.com> To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On 10/12/2010 04:39 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > Looks like the previously discussed flex bug, e.g.: > http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=126763385807985&w=2 > yeah I was thinking this as well.. from what it seems this is hitting with the packages provided by suse, as well as the userspace packages. but unlike my other system that was hitting this, the error is with building a module, instead of building the policy.(as a workaround I would throw in an older version of flex, then build only checkpolicy/module to get it working..(or if I was too lazy just copy a version that works over to the other machine)). I can go through this today and see what I get.. one thing I noticed with the packages from suse(11.4) is, policycoreutils is older than same of the newer packages they have, causing other errors with python i.e. seinfo not found kind of error. As for flex itself.. I do remember starting a bisect on that package, but then realized that from version 2.34(if I remember correctly) to 2.35 theirs just a few patches that are rather lengthy, making a bisect possible, but then going through the bad commit more lengthy... Justin P. Mattock -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/attachments/20101012/46fd43a0/attachment.html