Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15 and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora, and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before upstream?
Paul.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15 and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora, and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before upstream?
Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.
dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.
On 09/12/2011 02:14 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15 and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora, and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before upstream?
Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.
dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.
Shouldn't be a big job anyway.
I'd just posted (upstream) a patch adding support for opendkim, which was recently introduced in Fedora, and I'd like to get that merged too.
Paul.
On 09/12/2011 04:54 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 09/12/2011 02:14 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15 and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora, and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before upstream?
Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.
dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.
Shouldn't be a big job anyway.
I'd just posted (upstream) a patch adding support for opendkim, which was recently introduced in Fedora, and I'd like to get that merged too.
Paul.
selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
Could you open a new bug on Fedora too. And we should take care to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged as Dan said.
On 09/13/2011 06:31 AM, Miroslav Grepl wrote:
On 09/12/2011 04:54 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 09/12/2011 02:14 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 09/09/2011 09:41 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Currently, the SELinux policy for dkim in Fedora (at least for F-15 and Rawhide) is in the milter module, whereas upstream has a separate dkim module. I'm looking at adding support for opendkim (a fork of dkim-milter), which has recently been imported to Fedora, and if I send a patch upstream, it's not going to get pulled into Fedora because Fedora is using a patched milter module rather than upstream's dkim module. Is there any reason for this other than it being a historical thing due to it being in Fedora before upstream?
Paul. -- selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
Lets work to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged. I have a feeling others have worked on the Fedora policy that are using the milters all the time, so I think our stuff is good.
dgrift and mgrepl would no better then I.
Shouldn't be a big job anyway.
I'd just posted (upstream) a patch adding support for opendkim, which was recently introduced in Fedora, and I'd like to get that merged too.
Paul.
selinux mailing list selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux
Could you open a new bug on Fedora too. And we should take care to get the Upstream and Fedora code merged as Dan said.
Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737992
Cheers, Paul.
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org