----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bastien Nocera" <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" <desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 10:25:44 AM > Subject: Re: technical spec for the workstation up for review > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi, > <snip> > > In both cases we would ideally like the application developers to take some > > action in terms of how they deal with the situation. > > There wasn't any usable APIs for applications when I first replied to this > thread, and there still isn't any. > > Man "firewalld.dbus" will show you what app developers are supposed to work > with. Well since the whole context of the discussion was that we can not expect developers to specifically code for firewall.d, I did not of course propose the do this using the firewall.d API. Transmission for instance includes functionality for testing if the port it wants to use is available (and I assume it is not doing that using the firewall.d API). Of course I don't know if what Transmission does is done using 'non usable' APIs according to your definition. > > That said to me the request we would make of them in the firewall scenario > > seems easier to do generically than the option we would > > like them to take in the second option, and also less of a risk when some > > of > > the app devs will not do what we hope they > > will. > > Certainly, because users will simply disable the firewall and be done with > it. > That's certainly what I do. Well I guess you find a lot more value in sharing your photos over DLNA in the local internet cafe than most of us then :). Personally if my DLNA sharing silently failed due to me having chosen the internet cafe to be an untrusted area I would likely never realize as it is not a usecase I have ever cared about. Christian -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop