SELinux removed from desktop cd spin?

Andrew Farris lordmorgul at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 07:16:05 UTC 2008


Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Andrew Farris wrote:
>> Oh I followed your intention, I just disagree with whether that 
>> parallel is a fair or even logical one to make about whether selinux 
>> is *in* the official spins as opposed to *forcing* people to enable 
>> it, which is the difference between effecting your choice or not.
> 
> No, please reread what I said.
> 
> It was never about the choice to force people to enable it.
> 
> It was about the decision to mandate that *every* official fedora spin 
> had it enabled by default.
> 
> I contend that that there is room for enough official spins, such that 
>  >0 will have selinux not enabled by default.
> 
> The target of the rant was advocating that exactly 0 official fedora 
> spins have selinux not enabled be default.

The OP you replied to (jonez) did not mention enabling selinux, only having it. 
  This may be a minor semantic difference, but I see no reason why the 
distribution should produce official spins without selinux *available*... I 
agree there is plenty of room for a spin in which it is not enabled by default 
(but I would not agree the main desktop spin is one of them).  As you've already 
mentioned if its that important for someone to build a custom spin with no 
selinux bits on it at all, thats not exactly hard for them to do.  But is there 
honestly a need for Fedora to host and build it? IMO No.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> <ajfarris at gmail.com>
  gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list