Re: Security policy oversight needed?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2009/11/19 Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>:
> It makes sense to me for the upstream defaults to be fairly
> restrictive, with changes being made downstream in distros (and their
> remixes/spins) to loosen those up as needed.  In other words, our
> desktop package group would include whatever was needed to induce the
> desired behavior in the Desktop spin.  A good bit of this issue would
> need to be addressed upstream though.  (Maybe I just repeated what you
> said, not sure if I caught the nuance.)

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and if I was to redo the F12
experience again this is what I would have done. At the moment we're
asking the server spin to essentially close the door, when maybe we
should start with a closed door, and be asking the desktop spin to
open it up a little more.

Richard.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux