reviving Fedora Legacy

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Wed Oct 15 13:34:53 UTC 2008


On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:43:48AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> No, it really wouldn't.  If the ACLs are open for the kernel on an older branch
> anyone with cvsextras (or whatever the FAS group is now called) can commit to it.
> That means anyone can fsck up the kernel and break all of those users on this
> EOLed release.

In the proposal the updated packages go to another repository, isn't
that enough? I honestly don't think that FESCo would endorse such an attitude.
Unless I am missing something, the closed ACL are only accepted for
security reasons, I don't think that a "don't touch my packages even
though I don't maintain them" attitude is something we want to have in
Fedora. My understanding of the current situation is even that Jesse 
(hoping I recall well) is pushing forward opening ACLs for former core 
packages except when there is a strong security concern, now that there 
are 2 groups, uberpackagers and packagers.

> (And bug reports, blah blah blah.)

Also removing the owners from the ACL (which is something that should be
done in the future, I think) will stop them from receiving bug reports
for the branch.

--
Pat




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list