Admiral Beotch wrote:
> Once I get it all figured out, I'll definitely send the information off 
> to the packager. Again, excellent catch on mounting the disk to the 
> default TOPDIR before installing the rpm. I cant wait to try that in a 
> couple days.
> 
> I dont want to fork this thread, but I have a strong stance on this 
> issue and I see it getting ignored a lot on many forums... SELinux is an 
> awesome security framework and should never be disabled. It's like a 
> firewall for processes. One wouldn't disable a firewall because it kept 
> an required application from working, you'd figure out how to unblock 
> the traffic. The same should go for SELinux. If a service or account 
> gets compromised or abused, SELinux will keep it sandboxed so it can't 
> affect other parts of the system.

And my stance is the opposite.  The standard unix security model wasn't 
broken to begin with.  SELinux adds another layer that is only necessary 
if you got something wrong in the first place.  Now, if you can't get 
the simple, easy to understand thing right, what are the odds that 
you'll do better with one that is so complicated that even the 
distribution developers have spent years on and still haven't perfected? 
If you have time to learn and tune both models perfectly, then they 
shouldn't hurt anything, but so far I've always had something better to 
do and considered it more productive to focus on the simple model.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/