Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
To:     selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: obsolete policy
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:29:20 +1100
Message-ID: <2834968.yUVx8FsqrH@liv>
In-Reply-To: <2087042.fIsVSkRV3x@liv>
References: <2087042.fIsVSkRV3x@liv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 10:28:34 PM AEDT Russell Coker wrote:
> For future reference I think we should we make it standard procedure to
> include the upstream URL for software related to a module in any case that
> it's non-obvious.  I could have saved at least an hour if there was a list
> of upstream URLs to check.

This was a badly written paragraph.

We should make it mandatory to include the upstream URL in the policy source 
so that future maintainers know where to go to find out if it's still 
maintained and to find out any other information that may be necessary.  For 
some things we don't really need it (like Apache and ssh for example), but 
even then it wouldn't do any harm and consistency is good when it only costs a 
few bytes in the source tree.

Also my previous message wasn't a list of all the modules that might be 
removed.  There were a bunch that were Red Hat things with an unclear status 
and it was easier to just disable them for the Debian build and let someone 
else worry about what Red Hat is doing.

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/