On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 10:29 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > I think CAPP certification, as I understand it, is a poor fit for the > security needs of our default Fedora offerings, where we expect an > active network. That could be part of the problem. CAPP certification > certainly feels like the wrong capability to try to target in our > default usage case. Our default usage scenario for the supported spins > is simply not the usage that CAPP tries to handle. But it could be > very useful for a new spin concept which targets exactly the usage > case the CAPP speak to. So I guess this is what all this really comes down to: Do we care about certification? Hey, Steve Grubb, are you the shadow-utils maintainer? Whoever the shadow-utils maintainer(s) is/are, do you want to agree to put this up to a FESCo vote? If FESCo says yes to certification, things stay as is. If no, shadow-utils gets set 755 like every other binary on the system. Your other option is to stand your ground as is your maintainer privilege. :P
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
