ACL removal day?!

[Jon Ciesla]

> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:49:57PM +0200, Christian Iseli wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:31:28 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > Suggestion for FESCO: new packages must explicitly request an ACL.
>>
>> I'm all for it, but I was lead to believe that putting ACLs *by default*
>> was a "sine qua non" of the Core + Extras merge...
>
> Maybe now that the core packages are merged with ACLs, the default could
> be set to what is  most used for new packages which are, in general more
> like former extras packages and put by people with former extras
> 'ideology'. People can still add them afterwards.
>
> Couldn't it be discussed by FESCO? Or I recall vaguely that it already
> had been.

It was, and IIRC the reason it is as it is is that* the default provides
security and can be easily opened up, but won't leave an unsuspecting
packager with a community-alterable package without their intervention.

That said, I prefer an open model and keep meaning to get around to
whacking my acls.  But I don't think there's much reason to change the
current policy, as it maximizes choice, security, and minimized work for
the admin side of the equation.  Just my 2000 lire.

* this is technically correct English.  Damn.

> --
> Pat
>
> --
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
>


-- 
novus ordo absurdum