On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 18:01 +0200, Jon Ciesla wrote: > 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. > Yep, totally agree with it. I think this policy is good, nevertheless I'll remove my ACLs as well (probably tomorrow). > * this is technically correct English. Damn. > Yep, English is a wonderful language, don't you think? :-) > > -- > > Pat > > > > -- > > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > > Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
