Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:08:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, kibab@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFR: FEATURE macros for AUDIT/CAM/IPC/KTR/MAC/NFS/NTP/PMC/SYSV/... Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102121907590.88358@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20110212151442.000016bb@unknown> References: <20110211103028.12684f54yrw8tgqo@webmail.leidinger.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102120051320.49899@fledge.watson.org> <20110212151442.000016bb@unknown>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:52:48 +0000 (GMT) Robert Watson > <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> The one comment I'd make is that the MAC case should indicate that "The MAC >> Framework" is supported, rather than mandatory access controls being >> present -- the presence of the framework doesn't imply the presence of >> mandatory access control policies. > > Does > FEATURE(mac, "Mandatory Access Control Framework support"); > look better? > > Alternatively/additionally we could use mac_framework as the name of the > feature. The above seems fine -- while I've been moving to names like mac_framework.h, it's still "options MAC" and "security/mac", etc, and think that "mac" is the most consistent options. Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1102121907590.88358>