> 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@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > -- novus ordo absurdum -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
