On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> inode0 wrote: >>> Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates >>> against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I >>> hope no one would consider doing it. >> >> I agree. Either Fedora supports "Secure" Boot or it doesn't, doing this per >> package is a very bad idea (unless there's a technical reason requiring it). >> > > I think doing this at the software level is to be left to the software > developer's discretion. And the software developer has all the rights > to do so, for either technical or philosophical reasons. > > I am more concerned about the package maintenance level. At the > package maintenance level, it does not make sense to patch against the > upstream decision. On the other hand, a package maintainer should have > the right to not support users filing bugs that potentially originate > from secure boot. If that really happens (I doubt it but still) you are free to reassign the bug to the packages responsible for implementing secureboot. Simply refusing to run because secureboot is enabled (unless there are technical reasons) is simply "limiting the users freedom in the name of freedom" which is unacceptable. > This, I think, is equivalent to the fact that a > provenpackager is not responsible for all the packages in the > distribution, although he has the necessary permissions for > modification. That's nonsense. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
