-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/2010 10:18 PM, Mr Dash Four wrote:
> In theory that would work since the policy is wrapped in a
> optional_policy block.
>
Ah, right - something new I learned today then!
> To be honest these modules (authlogin and locallogin) should not be in
> base in the first place.
>
> I dont have them in base in my personal policy either:
>
> [root@localhost Desktop]$ semodule -l | grep authlogin
> authlogin 2.2.0
> [root@localhost Desktop]$ semodule -l | grep locallogin
> locallogin 1.10.0
>
Yeah, but other modules (gdm for one, I think) is also 'base' and if you
make locallogin as 'module' you will get that error too (I tried doing
something like this this afternoon and soon realised that I will be in a
world of hurt if I continue that path, so I prepared a separate module
instead).
gdm should not be in base either:
semodule -l | grep xserver
xserver 3.4.2
I've been through this duplicate declaration/out of scope issues many
times. It is one of the reason that i maintain my own policy instead of
using fedoras' policy.
> Stuffing everything in base just to work around some issue that should
> be handled more appropriately is a bad idea in my opinion.
>
> If this patch does not work then not much else will work and policy is
> fundamentally broken.
>
Hehe! I am sure you've tested it before sending this over. I'll do the
same tomorrow and see how it goes.
Sorry, i have not tested it.
Yet, i am pretty sure it would work in my personal policy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkz8As0ACgkQMlxVo39jgT/ZCgCfW75h55BiMEUcu30sqn0IoV9A
pDAAoMFcoiGHjEDyiCWBYcLZT62H2uh0
=NnRc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----