Agreed with others, I can't see Network Manager having issue with SELinux.
Can you post SELinux reporting details?
--
Chris Jones
PHOTO RESOLUTIONS - Photo - Graphic - Web
C and L Jones - Proprietors
ABN: 98 317 740 240
WWW: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com
@: chrisjones(a)comcen.com.au or photoresolutions(a)comcen.com.au
Consider this file from nxt_python package:
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-lego.rules
BUS=="usb", SYSFS{idVendor}=="0694", GROUP="lego", MODE="0660"
Is it safe & sane to include an identical udev rule file in the nbc
package with different filename? To state the obvious -- it'd use the
same group name and mode.
Fallback plan is to prep a package just for this udev rule and depend
on it, but it seems unnecesary overhead.
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
Hi,
I've submitted my first Fedora package for review and sponsoring recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the two are
minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
commented out in the default config.
What is the best way to handle this? Can I keep one spec for both and use
conditionals to always build the right way?
I've seen code like "%if 0%{?rhel}" somewhere on the net, but that didn't work
for me. I guess the %rhel-macro should be defined in /etc/rpm/macros.dist
where I usually find stuff like %fedora but that doesn't exist on my Centos 5.
Or am I supposed to create a completely separate .spec for EPEL once the
review, sponsoring etc. for Fedora is done?
Kind regards,
Gerd
--
Address (better: trap) for people I really don't want to get mail from:
jonas(a)cactusamerica.com