Re: Bug#472590: ls in Debian/Unstable

[Russell Coker]

On Monday 31 March 2008 20:02, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> I like Michael's suggestion.  Rephrasing it,
>
>     if (SELinux, with no other MAC or ACL)
>       use '.'
>     else if (any other combination of alternate access methods)
>       use '+'
>
> If someone who already has a copyright assignment on file for coreutils
> wants to write the patch (including doc update, tests, NEWS, ChangeLog,
> etc.), please speak up ASAP.  Otherwise I'll do it.

I still believe that as when running SE Linux all files will have contexts 
(the kernel code generates them if they are on a filesystem that doesn't 
support persistent storage of contexts or if they are unlabelled) then the SE 
Linux access controls should not be listed in "ls -l" output.

That said, the above suggestion makes sense and would work reasonably well.