From: sven.vermeulen@siphos.be (Sven Vermeulen)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:31:00 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 3/3] Implement X Desktop Group
In-Reply-To: <50B39A4B.6000905@tresys.com>
References: <1352116515-21046-1-git-send-email-dominick.grift@gmail.com>
	<1352116515-21046-4-git-send-email-dominick.grift@gmail.com>
	<50B39A4B.6000905@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <CAPzO=Nypu3i_v2w-gqaqJXj8_Yuk6R8L8b2k32GX+LEsF32u1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Nov 26, 2012 5:35 PM, "Christopher J. PeBenito" <cpebenito@tresys.com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure that user_data_home_t is the best name.  I thought about
user_local_home_t, but thats vague too.  Sven has been putting forward a
patch for this stuff for a while too, and I'm thinking the it might make
sense to have xdg in the type names.

We currently use xdg_<type>_home_t where type refers to the xdg content
type. But prior to the name, a first question would be if we should make
the type declarations part of an existing domain or not.

I currently use a separate module to ease the management.

> It seems that .local would probably be a better idea, since it keeps
errors down.  I looked on my system, and all I have in ~/.local is share
anyway.

True, but as Dominick saud, XDG currently defines it as such.

Wkr,

  Sven
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/attachments/20121127/6a8eddb0/attachment.html