Policy Module Packaging Guidelines (first draft)

[Wart]

Paul Howarth wrote:
> I've written up my thoughts on packaging policy modules with applications:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules
> 
> Fire away!

Looks good!

* s/scrope/scope/

* In the 'separate subpackage' section do you want to add a note about
making the -selinux subpackage an entirely new package with its own
specfile, instead of a subpackage in an existing spec file?

Advantages:

Keeps the spec files much simpler and easier to read.
Allows for separate maintainers of the main and -selinux packages.
selinux packages can be updated without pushing new builds of the main
package

Disadvantages:

Care must be taken to make sure that the selinux package is updated with
the main package as needed.
What value should be given for the URL and License tags in the spec file?

* I like the inclusion of the source files in %doc.  That can be
extremely useful.

* You should note that you can't use 'service myapp condrestart' in
%postun to transition a daemon process back to the unconfined domain
after the module has been unloaded.  You have to first transition the
daemon domain, then remove the policy module.  Otherwise the process
will end up in an odd state and can't be killed until selinux is disabled:

%postun selinux
    /usr/sbin/setsebool %{name}_disable_trans 1
    /sbin/service %{name} condrestart > /dev/null 2>&1 || :
    for selinuxvariant in %{selinux_variants} ; do
        /usr/sbin/semodule -s ${selinuxvariant} -r mymodule &> /dev/null
|| :
    done

* How should the selinux policy module be versioned?  Should it match
the application versioning?  Are there any restrictions on policy module
version numbers?

* Using %{name} instead of 'myapp' in the templates would make it easier
to copy/paste them into existing packages

* Don't you want to call 'fixfiles -R' in the %post and %postun sections
of the sample templates?  You included it in the scriptlets section above.

--Mike