Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753354 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Simerda <pavlix@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-20 14:16:54 EST --- Created attachment 556578 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=556578 New SRPM This is a new release with the following changes: All review comments incorporated except manual page errors that I'll be revisiting later. At least if I haven't missed something. Ad permissions: This is what we get from upstream. The reasoning about non-readable configuration files or even directories is usually that someone could use the configuration files to include e.g. encryption keys and forget to chmod the file. For now I'm switching it to 644 but I would like to have some discussion before we get it in Fedora. The question is, whether to hide IPsec configuration from ordinary users so that (a) they don't know what's configured and (b) the admin doesn't leak authentication keys by mistake. *If* we choose to protect the configuration, I would prefer the 'chmod -x /etc/strongswan/' way so we protect the whole directory. Ad manpages: Could you please tell me how do I get these warnings with rpmbuild? Where are they put, or is it just its output? I don't see them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review