Re: Mozilla plugins packaging [Re: SELinuxDenyPtrace: Write, compile, run, but don't debug applications?]

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

 



On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:28:23 +0200, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Is not upstream, Mozilla in this case, Gnome for shell extensions,
> Google for Androids apps. etc responsible for conducting security
> auditing on extensions/addons they host/provide upstream?

One could automatically trust in Fedora to Mozilla plugins only if it's
licensing and reviewing requirements are equal or are subset the Fedora one's.

I do not see the requirements for a Mozilla plugin acceptance - as it does not
even have to be "open-source" (whatever that means) it just cannot comply with
the Fedora requirements.


> And another thing why do we want to package something that works out
> of the box for the end user

Upstream unreviewed binary blobs in no way work for me as a user.


Regards,
Jan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[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