From: dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:25:16 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] Add Debian location for rtkit-daemon daemon
In-Reply-To: <50573EFD.9020603@tresys.com>
References: <1347488050-19736-1-git-send-email-bigon@debian.org>
	<1347538790.2915.20.camel@d30.localdomain>
	<50520213.40902@redhat.com>
	<1347552374.2915.27.camel@d30.localdomain>
	<50573EFD.9020603@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <505740DC.6090400@redhat.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/17/2012 11:17 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 09/13/12 12:06, Dominick Grift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 11:56 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>> On 09/13/2012 08:19 AM, Dominick Grift wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 00:14 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>>>>> From: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@bigon.be>
>>>>> 
>>>>> --- rtkit.fc |    4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>> 
>>>>> diff --git a/rtkit.fc b/rtkit.fc index 52c441e..fd82305 100644 --- 
>>>>> a/rtkit.fc +++ b/rtkit.fc @@ -1 +1,5 @@ /usr/libexec/rtkit-daemon
>>>>> -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:rtkit_daemon_exec_t,s0) + 
>>>>> +ifdef(`distro_debian',` +/usr/lib/rtkit/rtkit-daemon	-- 
>>>>> gen_context(system_u:object_r:rtkit_daemon_exec_t,s0) +')
>>>> 
>>>> This was merged. Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> I have never been a big fan of the ifdef(DISTRO) stuff in the fc files.
>>> Why is it necessary hear?  Only reason for this would be if another
>>> distro had a file here named /usr/lib/rtkit/rtkit-daemon that they
>>> wanted to label differently. Lets not flood the fc files with these
>>> macros.  I could definitely see Fedora moving to this location.  Driven
>>> by systemd.
>> 
>> I agree, but until we get consensus cross the board regarding this issue 
>> i don't see any reason to reject these patches.
>> 
>> removing the ifdef wrappers is trivial so as soon as we can all agree ill
>> remove them.
>> 
>> So i would like to hear opinions of at least pebenito. bigon and swift 
>> about this as well (which i cc'd)
> 
> We can always remove the ifdef if Fedora uses that path.  But in this case,
> the fc seems odd to me; why would you put a service's executable in
> /usr/lib (even as a subdir)?
> 

Systemd is pushing the idea that you put apps that are to be run as a service
or by a library into /usr/lib/PACKAGENAME (This apps should never be run using
multilib).  As opposed to /usr/libexec.

These are the directories I have in Fedora 18

/usr/lib/gconv
/usr/lib/sse2
/usr/lib/jvm
/usr/lib/cups
/usr/lib/udev
/usr/lib/debug
/usr/lib/alsa
/usr/lib/krb5
/usr/lib/dracut
/usr/lib/kbd
/usr/lib/jvm-private
/usr/lib/jvm-exports
/usr/lib/rtkaio
/usr/lib/bonobo
/usr/lib/games
/usr/lib/binfmt.d
/usr/lib/grub
/usr/lib/security
/usr/lib/crda
/usr/lib/gcc
/usr/lib/udisks2
/usr/lib/modprobe.d
/usr/lib/systemd
/usr/lib/python2.7
/usr/lib/mozilla
/usr/lib/locale
/usr/lib/python3.3
/usr/lib/audit
/usr/lib/gems
/usr/lib/jvm-commmon
/usr/lib/modules
/usr/lib/firmware
/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
/usr/lib/xen
/usr/lib/modules-load.d
/usr/lib/i686
/usr/lib/polkit-1
/usr/lib/yum-plugins
/usr/lib/sysctl.d
/usr/lib/man2html
/usr/lib/rpm


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlBXQNwACgkQrlYvE4MpobNk2gCeLJAykDVtnEfo7NMYut308v/z
LQgAn2+Tibfah9G9+LsbOhSB9W4P0RAf
=uwrK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----