From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QoGpp-0001tL-Km for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:24:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B94F21C1CF; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:24:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A95221C19B for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so6105239wwf.10 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:24:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=jv5GFx9mtbgcJwGVf3c1U5yIJe9IvNn28dBuy1B2H8M=; b=fOnytFtARfdvG71W4zEpueIbFn+9McgstTlmhrDpu+r576NXZFu+iBiyHUFDn55gUX 50PS021fIeU93dVtHvw78DDnLCKbtDVSD2Tx4/cqsxTZMY71ACk20K/RRi3D+QzU60eC Un2PvlilQFyhnB+xnihxqitbgZWvYn9sQHHfk= Received: by 10.227.20.77 with SMTP id e13mr7186366wbb.60.1312298651520; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc1-broo4-0-0-cust780.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com [86.4.215.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fn12sm5105777wbb.21.2011.08.02.08.24.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:20:37 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX capability in Gentoo Message-ID: <20110802162037.72707e05@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E381579.6010103@gentoo.org> References: <4E356A0C.7070004@gentoo.org> <4E35B468.10604@gentoo.org> <20110802090832.2cd03a32@pomiocik.lan> <4E3809AA.2050609@gentoo.org> <20110802153134.7cab1727@googlemail.com> <4E380EEA.6080505@gentoo.org> <20110802155454.5fb24cb4@googlemail.com> <4E38123E.90709@gentoo.org> <20110802160554.68059c64@googlemail.com> <4E381579.6010103@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/0qswajN3s38ad.zl/3QFbbx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 8e2a2a06cdf7a4e625f970de6e8b5390 --Sig_/0qswajN3s38ad.zl/3QFbbx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:19:21 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > Is rlpkg going behind the PM's back when it does selinux labelings? Yup. Also, note that PMS has wording for selinux. > I know there are difference, but if there's a screwup in some policy, it > also leads to horribly screwed up system. Nonetheless, I'm not > insensitive to what you are saying, and I think the safer approach > would be to write a howto and show the user how to manually convert > some typical binaries. There are only a handful that would be > targeted. Why are caps so important that we should be encouraging users to subvert things, yet at the same time not important enough that they should be handled properly? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/0qswajN3s38ad.zl/3QFbbx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk44FccACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG+7wCgh/Hd0ePctBOXYA3M2brZ0WIH is4AoLXON+baDEDiUwKL1kQOBkgTulsH =kQAo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/0qswajN3s38ad.zl/3QFbbx--