From: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
To: "Christopher J. PeBenito" <pebenito@ieee.org>
Cc: selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org,
Rahul Sandhu <nvraxn@posteo.uk>,
Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Build system change
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 15:58:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ld9igz5l.fsf@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f2378c3-b593-40ff-b2a0-8e7bdd43497d@ieee.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2094 bytes --]
"Christopher J. PeBenito" <pebenito@ieee.org> writes:
> On 9/3/26 5:10 AM, Sam James wrote:
>> "Christopher J. PeBenito" <pebenito@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>> Back when refpolicy started, every system carried the policy sources
>>> and built its own policy locally. Given that world, *make* was the
>>> obvious choice — ubiquitous, lightweight, and well understood. The
>>> downside is a set of Makefiles that’s hard to read and even harder to
>>> maintain.
>>>
>>> Fast‑forward to today, and no one is building full policies on‑device
>>> anymore. Outside of a few local modules, the main policy is built by
>>> the distro. With that in mind, I’d like to move the main policy build
>>> to a modern system (the headers‑based builds would stay on make).
>>>
>>> I’ve been experimenting with *meson/ninja*, and so far the results
>>> look good. I’d appreciate feedback on two points:
>>>
>>> 1.
>>>
>>> *Concerns about making this change*
>>
>> We'd lose the ability to quickly run make for a single policy being
>> developed before it moves into proper packaging, I think, but we could
>> keep simple Makefiles around for that case.
>
> When you say single policy, do you mean a full build of
> standard/MLS/MCS or an individual policy module like "make
> modulename.pp"?
>
Ah, sorry, I meant "make modulename.pp" when working on something new.
>
>>> 2.
>>>
>>> *Which build system we should adopt (I'm definitely not attached to
>>> meson)*
>> Meson is usually the nicest to deal with as a distribution maintainer.
>>
>> I'm also a Meson contributor. I think Rahul was interested in adding
>> SELinux policy support natively into Meson too.
>>
> Can you clarify what that means? It seems like a very specialized feature.
Not needing custom_targets to build policy files, so benefitting from
proper typing and native Meson objects for it. Meson already has them
for various languages and it welcomes more of them.
I think he had some specific benefits in mind but I'd have to ask him
what they were again.
sam
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 418 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-03 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-01 13:42 RFC: Build system change Christopher J. PeBenito
2026-09-02 2:34 ` Russell Coker
2026-09-02 13:53 ` Christopher J. PeBenito
2026-09-02 16:08 ` Russell Coker
2026-09-03 3:14 ` Russell Coker
2026-09-03 9:10 ` Sam James
2026-09-03 9:51 ` Russell Coker
2026-09-03 12:30 ` Christopher J. PeBenito
2026-09-03 14:58 ` Sam James [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ld9igz5l.fsf@gentoo.org \
--to=sam@gentoo.org \
--cc=eschwartz@gentoo.org \
--cc=nvraxn@posteo.uk \
--cc=pebenito@ieee.org \
--cc=selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox