From: pebenito@ieee.org (Chris PeBenito) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:56:51 -0400 Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] misc fc changes In-Reply-To: <201704041805.39913.russell@coker.com.au> References: <20170402085805.2zlddx2evzcgxgop@athena.coker.com.au> <201704041749.35398.russell@coker.com.au> <20170404080247.GE10685@t450.enp8s0.d30> <201704041805.39913.russell@coker.com.au> Message-ID: To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On 04/04/2017 04:05 AM, Russell Coker via refpolicy wrote: > 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. While I agree that the "." doesn't really make a difference in this case, I'd prefer explicitness so there is no confusion in the future. i.e. that it be escaped. -- Chris PeBenito