Description of problem: Well, I would prefer a conditionalisation of SELinux the support in procps' spec file. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): procps-3.2.1-5 Actual results / Expected results: --- snipp --- --- procps.spec 2004-06-14 22:54:00.000000000 +0200 +++ procps.spec.rsc 2004-06-15 16:56:16.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +%if %{?WITH_SELINUX:0}%{!?WITH_SELINUX:1} +%define WITH_SELINUX 1 +%endif + Summary: System and process monitoring utilities. Name: procps Version: 3.2.1 @@ -39,10 +43,12 @@ %setup -q %patch1 -p1 -b .nostrip +%if %{WITH_SELINUX} %patch3 -p1 -b .selinux +%patch6 -p1 -b .selinux-workaround +%endif %patch4 -p1 -b .misc %patch5 -p1 -b .FAQ -%patch6 -p1 -b .selinux-workaround cp %SOURCE1 . %build @@ -75,6 +81,9 @@ %attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man5/* %changelog +* Tue Jun 15 2004 Robert Scheck <redhat> +- Make the SELinux support conditional in the spec file + * Mon Jun 14 2004 Dan Walsh <dwalsh> 3.2.1-5 - Fix FAQ Line --- snapp --- Additional info: I still know, that non SELinux is going away at Red Hat, but at current most of the packages have conditional SELinux support...why procps not? ;-)
SELinux has already been accepted upstream. So conditionalizing it makes no sense. The problem is that the command qualifies that they use upstream are the old ones. So we are patching to match the new standard of using -Z as the qualified. Conditionalizing procps would end up with SELinux supporting the old qualifiers. Dan
Hm okay...closing.