From: dominick.grift@gmail.com (Dominick Grift)
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:01:45 +0200
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] oidentd fixes
In-Reply-To: <5022708B.7090901@tresys.com>
References: <1344365757-12896-1-git-send-email-dominick.grift@gmail.com>
	<50226587.5010507@tresys.com> <502268AD.8080109@tresys.com>
	<1344433570.2306.38.camel@d30.localdomain>
	<5022708B.7090901@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <1344434505.2306.39.camel@d30.localdomain>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com



On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 09:58 -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 08/08/12 09:46, Dominick Grift wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 09:25 -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >> On 08/08/12 09:11, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >>> On 08/07/12 14:55, Dominick Grift wrote:
> >>>> remove oidentd_read_user_content because interfaces aren' for internal
> >>>> usage
> >>>
> >>> That's not actually a refpolicy rule.
> >>  
> >> To complete the thought, its fine to use an interface internally.  However, its preferred that you not create an interface only to use it internally unless its a complicated concept you're trying to abstract (e.g. portage_compile_domain()).
> >>
> > 
> > And that is actually the case here. The oidentd_read_user_content() is
> > trivial and is only used internally.
> > 
> 
> True, but technically the interface shouldn't be removed otherwise it breaks the API (the interface has been at least 1 release).  So you can make the change in the te file and do the usual deprecation notifications in the interface.  Then we can drop the interface some time in the future.  It may not be used in refpolicy, but theres the chance that it might be used in someone's custom policy.
> 

You got me there