2011/7/19 Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>:
> On 2011-07-19 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> On 19.07.2011 12:28, Yeb Havinga wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-07-18 22:21, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Scientific Linux 6 is not suitable, because its libselinux version
>>>> is a bit older
>>>> than this patch expects (libselinux-2.0.99 or later).
>>>> My recommendation is Fedora 15, instead.
>>>
>>> Installing right now, thanks for the heads up!
>>
>> Would it be reasonable to #ifdefs the parts that require version 2.0.99?
>> That's very recent so might not be available on popular distributions for
>> some time, so it would be nice to not have a hard dependency on it. You
>> could have autoconf rules to check for the new functions, and only use them
>> if they are available.
>
> In contrary to the subject I was under the impression the current patch is
> for the 9.2 release since it is in a commitfest for the 9.2 release cycle,
> which would make the libselinux-2.0.99 dependency less of a problem.
>
Sorry, the subject line was just my typo.
I'd like to agree with Yeb's opinion, because the reason why we determined
libselinux-2.0.93 as least requirement is the implementation in v9.1 used
a function that was supported in 2.0.93 due to omission of userspace avc
feature from the initial version to minimize patch size.
If we included userspace avc feature from the beginning, it would require
libselinux-2.0.99.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>