On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:59:55PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 16:00 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > I argued for such a rule, but others pointed out examples where this is > > > not always/generally a good idea, so the proposal did not have the > > > support to pass. > > > > Were the examples for certificate/ssh keys only? I don't really meant > > these with "config files". Are there any arguments against owning > > config files but certifcates/ssh keys? > > I don't recall anything except certificates. The log of that meeting is > here: > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/IRCLog20060727 > > Relevant timeframe: (09:33:08) - (09:59:24) Thanks! There isn't much in there which hasn't been said in this thread, I think. It's mostly about not wanting to accidentially remove certificates or other sensitive auto-generated key material and that can be handled fine (see my reply to Joe). And it also didn't fail on passing, it failed on available time in the session - looks like most people were not rejecting the idea of having config files (or other generated files) owned by the package, if it doesn't do harm. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpDm3z4L7q4v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
