Re: sepgsql documentation fixes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

2011/7/20 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> 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?
>
This update came from feedbacks when people tried to install contrib/sepgsql
of v9.1 and got troubled.
So, I think it is helpful to apply v9.1 also.

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>