From: russell@coker.com.au (Russell Coker)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:05:39 +1000
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] misc fc changes
In-Reply-To: <20170404080247.GE10685@t450.enp8s0.d30>
References: <20170402085805.2zlddx2evzcgxgop@athena.coker.com.au>
	<201704041749.35398.russell@coker.com.au>
	<20170404080247.GE10685@t450.enp8s0.d30>
Message-ID: <201704041805.39913.russell@coker.com.au>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:02:47 PM Dominick Grift via refpolicy wrote:
> > If at some future time we have something like a /etc/network/if-up-d
> > directory  then we probably want the same context for the files it
> > contains.
> 
> Oops misunderstood your argument in my previous reply. I suppose you are
> right to argue that its pretty unlikely to happen in this case.
> 
> Just saying though that escaping the periods consistently has my
> preference, if only for consistency and to always be as specific as
> possible.

If Chris asks me to do that then I will.  If he decides to just edit the patch 
in that way before applying it I won't bother arguing about it.  But I think 
it's fine as it is.

There are some situations where a '.' really makes a difference, ".so" is the 
one that springs to mind.  But in most situations it doesn't.

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