Description of problem: We really need a document describing how to use the Apache policy on Fedora. I'm in the process of writing one.
A rough draft is available here: http://people.redhat.com/walters/selinux-apache-en/ I'll update the .xml too.
Ok, here is a version which I think is ready for review.
Created attachment 105822 [details] tarball of selinux-apache guide
Need to add a bit to the guide about common problem cases, such as trying to serve web pages out of /opt/website (e.g. default_t)
The attachment following this covers a number of things. Running a diff against the previously attached version will reveal the extent of changes. * Changed ID attributes to (current) FDP standards. * <sectn> --> <section>, as per FDP standards. * New entities make version fun easier. * Apache HTTP Server is the official name, and is how it is used in the RHEL guides. * Some writing adjustments to the first two sections. More editing to come. :)
Created attachment 106486 [details] updates to document, editing, markup formatting This does obsolete attachment 105822 [details], but does not include the Makefile.
Created attachment 106517 [details] patch for guide from Thomas Stichele
Coo, thanks for reviewing Karsten. Can we get this in the fedora CVS so we can get these patches committed and have a centralized place to work on it?
Good suggestion, forgot about that. rhlinux.redhat.com:/usr/local/CVS/fedora-docs/selinux-apache/ Not the greatest module name, but it'll do. :) I presume you can get yourself access, if you don't already. I'll let you merge the patches.
Created attachment 106848 [details] completely edited document, ready for beta release, however see further comments This is a big difference compared to the original. One of the main things changed was the case used throughout; as per RH docs tradition and upcoming Fedora docs style guidelines, I tried to change wording to the active case, focusing entirely on the reader (you). Other changes should be obvious. Please review and let me know any questions. When you (Colin) are happy, we can post this to fedora.r.c/docs soonest; I have the capabilities and people permissions. I will follow this with a diff against current CVS, based on my XML file, mainly to make this bug report more useful. Colin, do you want to handle merging the patches and your changes? I did -not- include Thomas Stichele's patch in my work.
Created attachment 106849 [details] patch against current CVS based on XML from attachment #106848 [details]
Just to set the record straight, attachment #106849 [details] was a cvs diff -du against 1.1, not current CVS (1.5). FYI. :)
Doing a merge now, about 40% done.
Comment on attachment 106849 [details] patch against current CVS based on XML from attachment #106848 [details] Ok, this patch has been applied.
This guide is live now, so I'm turning this bug into a tracker for bugs related to the guide.
Just a question from your friendly bugmaster -- is this bug still relevant or should it be closed as obsolete?
This document is not going to have bugs fixed by me at least - if someone wants to revisit it (which I think would be useful) we can reopen a new bug.