On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> Is it just me, or does it seem odd to take Mozilla to task for >>> doing something with their (relatively much larger) ecosystem we >>> also endeavor to do with Fedora's? >>> >> >>Could you explain what you mean? > > Mozilla provides an API to sign extensions outside from their infrastructure. It's our infrastructural decision (correctly in my opinion) that prohibits this type of implementation. Why is it OK for Fedora infrastructure to sign the bootloader, the kernel, and kernel modules, but not application extensions? -- Chris Murphy -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
