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 <gentoo-hardened+bounces-3399-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1QZ91u-0006mx-Iq
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:02:42 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BEB131C0CD
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:02:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.aoaforums.com (www.aoaforums.com [174.123.188.106])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9BF1C023
	for <gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:28:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.aoaforums.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA4010DC7A
	for <gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:27:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 mail.aoaforums.com AAA4010DC7A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=giz-works.com;
	s=20080229-giz-works-com; t=1308691679;
	bh=deBuhL+b6q7vsRenxmmTIE+ZwIk=;
	h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:
	 Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID:Mime-Version;
	b=b/qL6fzpXHOswu4L9DnvcIca8BEmcGgw7q706VIMGhG1365EChmX8fSc9F09EwCRg
	 iRhL990KebHjCPSUay/bh54CbNiWwP+pXAPqtURhm5uNZ8aeKQX+8jjResEy3aTchg
	 nYZInc8msAOtCUkCNXcf0wHu8Fp/8Bv7SwfZxxRE=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at aoaforums.com
Received: from mail.aoaforums.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (aoaforums.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id WGTg6GB9XwGl for <gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>;
	Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:27:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.0.16] (adsl-70-141-193-251.dsl.spfdmo.sbcglobal.net [70.141.193.251])
	by mail.aoaforums.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A27D136079
	for <gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:27:15 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] SELinux policy for nginx, or include in
 apache?
From: Chris Richards <gizmo@giz-works.com>
To: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:27:07 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20110619151944.GB4651@siphos.be>
References: <20110615174526.GA18549@siphos.be> <4DF950E1.9090104@gentoo.org>
	 <1308194116.2141.21.camel@chris.localhost>
	 <20110619151944.GB4651@siphos.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2 (3.0.2-1.fc15) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <1308691636.25895.2.camel@chris.localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-hardened+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-hardened+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-hardened+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-hardened.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Archives-Salt: 
X-Archives-Hash: ef19170e292f89974d113bdf07f2cfdc

On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 17:19 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:15:14PM -0500, Chris Richards wrote:
> > I'm torn on this, but basically I think we ought to track upstream here.
> 
> Which is... ? ;-)

Well, it looked to me like Christopher pretty much squashed the patch,
for reasons already discussed there.  For reasons that I've already
mentioned, my opinion is that we should steer clear of it, at least for
now.  Of course, that's just my opinion.  ;)