Policy?! I don't need no stinking policy!

[Harry Putnam]

Douglas Furlong <douglas.furlong at firebox.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 22:55, Dave Waller wrote:
>> After further investigating I believe that the selinux=0 boot prompt 
>> might be a good canidate for default for FCC2.
>> 
>> Since many people will not know (as I did not) anything about SELinux 
>> and it is eazy enough to turn on/off.  Perhaps it is in or going to be 
>> in the installer as an option like the firewall screens. 
>> 
>> At first I thought that it would be module but it makes sence to have as 
>> a boot option only as any hacker could rmmod the selinux and then you 
>> have nothing.
>> 
>> Dave
>
> If by FCC2, you mean Fedora Core Test2 (wasn't sure what the second C
> meant), then they will not be shipping it with selinux=0 as the default.
> Or this was my impression.
>
> They need the SELinux stuff tested as much as possible, defaulting it to
> off will not exactly do this.
>
> Not sure what will happen with FC2, but hopefully if it's tested enough
> in text 2 and 3 then there will be no problem in FC2.

If user runs with selinx=0 in grub, then should user still see messages
about missing files etc, like the one I see whenever I run 
rpm -[Ui] *.rpm?

  /etc/security/selinux/src/policy/file_contexts/file_contexts:
  No such file or directory

  That pathname is unknown to the most recent rpmdb-fedora.