Thread

Re: sepgsql documentation fixes

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-07-20T12:44:48Z

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei.Kaigai@emea.nec.com> wrote:
>> >> /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/sepgsql_contexts:  line 33 has invalid object
>> >> type db_blobs
>> > It is not an error, but just a notification to inform users that
>> > sepgsql_contexts
>> > file contains invalid lines. It is harmless, so we can ignore them.
>> > I don't think sepgsql.sgml should mention about this noise, because it purely
>> > come from the problem in libselinux and refpolicy; these are external packages
>> > from viewpoint of PostgreSQL.
>> This is in contradiction with the current phrase in the documentation
>> that's right after the sepgsql.sql loading: "If the installation process
>> completes without error, you can now start the server normally". IMHO if
>> there are warnings that can be ignored, it would limit confusion for
>> sepgsql users if the documentation would say it at this point, e.g. "If
>> the installation process completes without error, you can now start the
>> server normally. Warnings from errors in sepgsql_contexts, a file
>> external to PostgreSQL, are harmless and can be ignored."
>>
> Indeed, it might be confusable to understand whether the installation got
> completed correctly, or not.
> So, I appended more descriptions about this messages, as follows:
>
> +  <para>
> +   Please note that you may see the following notifications depending on
> +   the combination of a particular version of <productname>libselinux</>
> +   and <productname>selinux-policy</>.
> +<screen>
> +/etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/sepgsql_contexts:  line 33 has invalid object ty
> +</screen>
> +   It is harmless messages and already fixed. So, you can ignore these
> +   messages or update related packages to the latest version.
> +  </para>
>
> See the attached patch, that contains other 3 documentation updates.
>
>> Thank you for this clarification. I have some ideas of things that if
>> they were in the documentation they'd helped me. Instead of seeking
>> agreement on each item, I propose that I gather documentation additions
>> in a patch later after the review, and leave it up to you guys whether
>> to include them or not.
>>
> OK, I like to check them. In addition, I'll also revise the wikipage in
> parallel to inform correctly.

Does all of this apply to both 9.1 and 9.2devel?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company