Bug 460540

Summary: SELinux error message on build
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Bryan Kearney <bkearney>
Component: appliance-toolsAssignee: David Huff <dhuff>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 10CC: ezcos, virt-maint
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-08-28 12:36:23 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Bryan Kearney 2008-08-28 14:07:57 UTC 
Description of problem:
  SELinux output error is shown on build:
  Failed to write selinux configuration.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
livecd-tools-018-1.fc10.thincrust.i386
appliance-tools-003-3.fc10.noarch

How reproducible:
Build using either the aos-rawhide or aos-f9 on an f9 machine with the following /etc/sysconfig/selinux policy:

# This file controls the state of SELinux on the system.
# SELINUX= can take one of these three values:
#       enforcing - SELinux security policy is enforced.
#       permissive - SELinux prints warnings instead of enforcing.
#       disabled - SELinux is fully disabled.
SELINUX=permissive
# SELINUXTYPE= type of policy in use. Possible values are:
#       targeted - Only targeted network daemons are protected.
#       strict - Full SELinux protection.
SELINUXTYPE=targeted
Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 02:53:34 UTC 
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle.
Changing version to '10'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Comment 2 David Huff 2009-03-18 15:37:40 UTC 
should be fixed in newest version of AT
Comment 3 Bryan Kearney 2009-08-28 12:36:23 UTC 
Ran this against 004.. and it looks clean.