On 4/2/13 6:19 PM, Shawn Wells wrote:
On 4/2/13 6:07 PM, Shawn Wells wrote:
> On 4/2/13 6:02 PM, Jeffrey Blank wrote:
>> oh, okay, I see you are changing it to match the XCCDF.
>>
>> change the XCCDF ID instead. its ID is more precise.
>
> (responding to all the NACKs, since the reasoning is the same).
>
> I was making my way through the OVAL (in preparation to create
> remediation scripts), and several OVAL checks don't match the XCCDF
> rule name. In the past our stated goal was to have XCCDF == OVAL ==
> remediation in regards of naming. Do you feel that no longer makes
> sense?
Jeff and I were chatting over IM, wanted to copy/paste the
conversation to the list for transparency:
> Jeff
> 6:11
> i want to be able to spot things in a directory listing
> 6:12
> and yes, i'm only interested in bothering with renaming if we're
> actually going to think about it and have it make sense
> 6:12
> in a complete way
> 6:13
> it's just not worth the time otherwise
>
> 6:13
> Shawn
> fair. i'd like to atleast have XCCDF rules match OVAL titles for
> templated items, though. Example: sysctl
>
> 6:13
> Blank, Jeff
> sure, that totally makes sense
So in effect, scrap the random renamings until (if?) a naming standard
is developed, but keep those for macro'd content (generated out of
RHEL6/input/checks/templates/) as those have a good enough
quasi-standard for the project.
And some more --
Shawn
other stuff an ack?
6:22
Jeff
sure
6:23
Shawn
wow, what a full endorsement ;)