On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:53 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:23:37PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But why? _Any_ package can completely screw up the system with a bad
> > scriplet or a dependency. Let's take one step back and consider why a
> > package would need special protections: only when there's something
> > _tricky_ about the package. We have such special protections for the
> > kernel (signing), firefox (trademarks), and for bootloaders (signing again),
>
> Well the fedora-release package could be arguably open to trademark.
Hmm, Fedora as such certainly. But fedora-release itself I don't think so.
It has a /usr/share/licenses/fedora-release/{Fedora-Legal-README.txt,LICENSE}
which shouldn't be touched, as in any other package, but apart from
that it's just a bunch of text files.
Well, there are a number of places where changing the contents of those text files can have a significant adverse effect on the distribution. In particular, many packages rely on the ID=, ID_LIKE=, and VARIANT_ID= fields in os-release to make decisions. Changing those without an understanding of what might break would be dangerous. I think that's a good argument for keeping this package under tighter control.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
