On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:58:41PM -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > On 10/18/07, Chris G <cl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 03:16:38AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > > Karl Larsen wrote: > > > > > > > I am pleased your many computers were not effected by the selinux > > > > update. I have no idea what is special about my computer but it is and > > > > I, just an old EE am not capable of figuring out what it is so I can run > > > > selinux. A sure fix EVERY time is to turn off selinux, relabel selinux > > > > and forget selinux. I am wondering why I have to relabel the stupid thing. > > > > > > You keep on telling us you are turning off SELinux, > > > and then a week later you say what problems SELinux is causing, > > > so you are turning it off ... > > > > > > Why not turn it off for good, and stop worrying us? > > > > > I didn't even install it but I still get SELinux security messages in > > my log file. I suspect that "turning it off" will have even less > > effect than not installing it to start with. > > > SELinux is part of the kernel. If you don't like it, form a SIG and > produce a kernel sans SELinux, or use a distro which doesn't have it. > Or easier yet, just disable it. > It's not actually causing me any problem but it is a bit disconcerting finding messages from it when I said during install that I didn't want it. I think it needs to be explained better, including an indication that if you say 'no' at installation you'll still get some of it. -- Chris Green
