From: dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:19:51 -0500
Subject: [refpolicy] Possible regression and bug in
	userdom_base_user_template
In-Reply-To: <1267539196.30557.71.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
References: <20100301102220.GF3990@myhost.felk.cvut.cz>	<1267450925.30557.7.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>	<20100301150133.GG3990@myhost.felk.cvut.cz>	<1267457544.30557.30.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>	<20100301170324.GI3990@myhost.felk.cvut.cz>	<20100301174828.pdj3qn7guaswg8g8@legacy.mxes.net>	<20100301201425.GJ3990@myhost.felk.cvut.cz>
	<1267539196.30557.71.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
Message-ID: <4B8D1E87.50001@redhat.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 03/02/2010 09:13 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 21:14 +0100, Michal Svoboda wrote:
>    
>> Martin Orr wrote:
>>      
>>> Yes, this is a Debian only patch.  According to my history, it was
>>> added somewhere between 0.0.20080702-1 and 0.0.20080702-4.
>>>        
>> Sigh. I guess the reasoning behind this is the same as in fedora? I'm
>> getting a little dizzy about these distro specific patches. Sad too.
>>      
> Well, unfortunately, thats how things work in Linux distros.  If you
> look at Fedora cvs or other distros' packaging RCSs, you'll see patching
> happening on many packages.
>
>    
That is also how innovation happens.  When someone has a good idea they 
first try it out within their distribution.  If it turns out it works 
well then hopefully they upstream it.  If upstream accepts the patch 
then all distributions benefit.  Sometimes upstream does not accept the 
patch for one reason or another and distributions copy each others patches.