Hide Forgot
Description of problem: When letting rpm verify the selinux-policy-targeted package a number of files shows up like this: 5S....... /etc/selinux/targeted/modules/active/homedir_template It looks strange to have the size and content modified, but the time stamp untouched. When I first saw it I suspected either a bit error on the disk or a bug in rpm (bug 7410444). But it turns out this is intentional. These files are marked with "%verify(not mtime)". I still find it strange. What is the reason to not verify mtime, but everything else. Most of the time, files in packages that are meant to be modified are marked %config. If one wanted this file to be modifiable, but not show up in verification, it seems it would be natural to inhibit the checksum and size checks too. Is it really intentional to exclude mtime and only mtime from the check? Or is this a bug? Versin-Release number of selected component (if applicable): selinux-policy-targeted-3.10.0-38.fc16.noarch
My goal is to install these packages and update them. I don't want rpm to create rpmnew or rpmorig files. These files can be modified using SELinux commands only. If I am upgrading a package and the package notices that the policy has been modified then it will use the semanage commands to update the policy, if the files have not been modified then the files will be replaced and the policy will be updated. An updated modified configuration files takes 30-60 seconds to recompile and requires a lot of memory, while an unmodified system takes not time. I think I can add eliminate the other verifications. http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/45712.html
I see. I had read the initial part of that log in the alpha announcement but didn't realize there was a connection here. And I wasn't aware that RPM only checks modification time to decide if a %config file had been changed. But faster updates certainly is something good. (Even if I'm afraid I'm personally tinkering a bit too much to take advantage of it very often on systems I maintain.:-) So take this report for what it is: I was a bit surprised by an suspicious looking pattern, and wondered if it really was intentional. If it is, then it's fine.
More like floundering around to try to find the right combination... Should be fixed in selinux-policy-3.10.0-40.fc16
> Should be fixed in selinux-policy-3.10.0-40.fc16 Indeed. I installed -40 yesterday, and when I check now I get no warnings at all. freddi$ sudo rpm -Vf /etc/selinux/targeted/modules/active/homedir_template freddi$ rpm -q selinux-policy-targeted selinux-policy-targeted-3.10.0-40.fc16.noarch
selinux-policy-3.10.0-43.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/selinux-policy-3.10.0-43.fc16
Package selinux-policy-3.10.0-43.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing selinux-policy-3.10.0-43.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14618 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Package selinux-policy-3.10.0-45.1.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing selinux-policy-3.10.0-45.1.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14618 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
selinux-policy-3.10.0-45.1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.