Just clarifying what's been posted in a couple of other threads.
SELinux *will* be included in Fedora Core 2 test 3 and the final
Fedora Core 2 release. However, SELinux will be disabled by default.
To install with SELinux support, pass 'selinux' to the installer
on the command line. (Or, configure it appropriately in kickstart).
This was done based on both internal and external testing and feedback
of the current Fedora Core SELinux implementation and policy. At
this point, we feel that it would be potentially damaging to the aims
of both SELinux and Fedora to ship Fedora Core 2 with SELinux
enabled by default.
We're still committed to the integration of SELinux technology,
and we're still working to fix all the bugs we find. Evaluation of
when the right time isto switch it on by default will continue.
What does this mean for those testing with SELinux? Please, continue!
We're still looking to shake out all the issues and make it work.
The Fedora team
I was chatting tonight with the guy who maintains the Cooperative Bug
His work has helped me a lot with Rhythmbox - certainly he's found some
I wonder if it might make sense to include something like this in
It's a really well done project - they have it so users can easily
opt-out (certainly we could change the default to opt-in), and even
include a tray icon. They've thought about privacy a lot:
It does kind of go along with Fedora's philosophy of being a proving
ground. Anyways, not something to do lightly of course, but it's a
pretty cool project, and the main author writes *fantastic* bug reports.
Should I bugzilla this, or is it a known issue?
A did a install from Rawhide yesterday (also noted with test2), and on
my laptop with an Radeon Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500]. I have
no direct rendering.
$ glxinfo | grep rendering:
direct rendering: No
It did work with RHL8, RHL9, and FC1.
> Could you give an example of what the student would post i.e., the
> of information you are looking for?
Thanks for the reply. I owe you a dollar :)
Personally, I'd be particularly interested in things relating to the
Fedora as a community. For instance, the status of Fedora Extra's and
the other community contribution policies. Are these being discussed
internally, or is progress as stagnant as it appears on this list? I do
realize that any posting to the list is an invitation to the peanut
gallery for comment, but I guess that goes with the territory.
Secondly, I'd be very interested in hearing about policy decisions that
are made regarding Fedora. For instance "we decided not to support
kernel 2.4 in FC2 since we're targeting kernel 2.6 for RHEL4". I realize
some of this information has been presented in the past, but I can't
imagine weeks and months go by without any change.
I'd also be interested to hear random "blog" information that provides a
picture of what RedHat folks are working on that relates to Fedora. Such
as "Person's X and Y have been working on integrating selinux policies
for FC2, Person Z is working on a new set of user configuration tools.
Those interested in helping out with these should contact person A." IE
a more user readable summary of the sort of information that can be
gleaned from the commit comments in rawhide report.
Obviously progress is happening on FC2 and at redhat in general, but
from my perspective (monitoring fedora-devel primarily) it's really
tough to know what, exactly. Obviously it's impractical for all
technical discussion to go through the list, but some summary of what's
been going on would help.
Perhaps a periodically updated list of areas where volunteer help would
be most appreciated would be a good idea, too?
Just my $0.02.
> > So in the end, people outside of Red Hat feel shitted on, the people
> > inside of Red Hat dont understand why people are always picking on
> > and eventually some psycology doctorate gets another paper on the
> > insanity of mankind.
> That's all fine and good, in the meantime while the psychology student
> gets his/her paper fedora has fallen apart and it useless to both red
> hat and the users.
Hear, Hear! It would seem advantageous for RedHat to (hire|recruit) that
fabled psychology student to walk from cubicle to cubicle and post his
findings to the list on a daily or weekly basis. I can't imagine it
would cost much, and the benefit to the community would be extreme.
Heck, if they don't want to pay anyone to do it, I'm sure there are any
number of volunteers on this list who'd be happy to do it for a week or
two at a time for the cost of a plane ticket.
Just look at the excitement caused by the average rawhide report, the
only real "official output" we get from RedHat as a whole as to where
I've got $1.00 that no-one from RedHat responds to this thread, anyone
care to counter?
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 16:46, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 23:29, seth vidal wrote:
> > In python packages should the .pyc files be included in the package or
> > not?
> > up2date has them, system-config-users has them, system-config-packages
> > does not, nor does system-config-mouse.
> The .pyc files should probably be included as well as the .py files.
> And it should be done automatically just like the buildroot stripping
> policies because it's slightly tricky to do "right". Nalin wrote a brp
> script to do so a while ago, it just hasn't been integrated into the
> default rpm config (yet)
Any reason to include .py files at all ? Could save some space only
shipping the .pyc files..
>Nvidia's problem; they can't deal with the 4K stacks in the Fedora
>kernel (and now in the vanilla tree as well, apparently soon
>non-optional there as well). They'll probably fix it in a while. Nobody
i thought CONFIG_REGPARMS is the problem not the 4K stacks....
Linux.Net -->Open Source to everyone
Powered by Linare Corporation