[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

ATTN shadow-utils maintainer (Was Re: More PATH fallout. Who decided this was a good idea?)



On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 10:29 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> I think CAPP certification, as I understand it, is a poor fit for the
> security needs of our default Fedora offerings, where we expect an
> active network.  That could be part of the problem. CAPP certification
> certainly feels like the wrong capability to try to target in our
> default usage case. Our default usage scenario for the supported spins
> is simply not the usage that CAPP tries to handle.  But it could be
> very useful for a new spin concept which targets exactly the usage
> case the CAPP speak to.

So I guess this is what all this really comes down to: Do we care about
certification? 

Hey, Steve Grubb, are you the shadow-utils maintainer? Whoever the
shadow-utils maintainer(s) is/are, do you want to agree to put this up
to a FESCo vote? If FESCo says yes to certification, things stay as is.
If no, shadow-utils gets set 755 like every other binary on the system.

Your other option is to stand your ground as is your maintainer
privilege. :P

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]