From: russell@coker.com.au (Russell Coker)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:53:15 +1100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] capability sorting
In-Reply-To: <9cd6c679-6a58-5acd-e242-4b2210385408@ieee.org>
References: <37190070.fYifpz0EYe@russell.coker.com.au>
	<2272A259-6997-48B9-9DF4-E3BF457E23C4@coker.com.au>
	<9cd6c679-6a58-5acd-e242-4b2210385408@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <1507820.bffRMn0SLr@russell.coker.com.au>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Monday, 13 February 2017 7:42:12 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 02/12/17 20:59, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I'm just pendant about such things.
> > 
> > But it does make it easier to compare policy by looking at it if things
> > are in the same order. If you have 2 lists of capabilities and one has an
> > extra item it can take a minute if they are in random order.
> True, but I don't plan on enforcing that it stays that way in the style 
> guide, so I don't know that it's worth applying.

The patch I sent changes 230 instances to be alphabetically sorted.  It will 
take a long time for any significant portion of them to have the wrong order 
by random policy changes.  This is a once a decade change.

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