On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM, drago01 wrote: > 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. > I am making a clear distinction between "simply refusing to run" and "simply refusing to provide support", which you conveniently ignore. >> 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. It's perfect analogy to me. Thanks, Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
