On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:58:13PM +0000, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 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.
That'd have to be a malicious change. So either a maintainer of fedora-release
or a proven packager would have to try to intentionally break the system.
It's not something I'd worry about.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
