On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:39:55 -0500 (CDT) Michael Hennebry <hennebry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The above is stuff thats all being worked on, yelling at anyone is > > unlikely to change the speed at which it gets done. > > What does "worked on" mean? I have been talking with pam, libpwquality, anaconda, gnome-initial-setup and passwd maintainers to come up with a technical way to implement a default policy. As well as a way to override it for local users or products that wish a different policy. I have been spending a bunch of time exchanging emails, looking at libpwquality code and working out something everyone can implement. > It seem to me that that is precisely the issue. > It could mean fixing the problem. > It could mean setting it in stone. > > My expectation, and I think that of others, > is that for anaconda, it will be set in stone. What does 'set in stone mean'? The current behavior? No. The proposed policy (which I just submitted to fesco for approval) wouldn't be the same as the current anaconda behavior. ...snip... > How is a maintainer or a standard writer suppose to distinguish > patience-based silence from approval-based silence? When a maintainer or standard writer says: "We are working on this, please hang on" and you wait that is patience. When you say "NO! I am filing bugs and complaining instead" thats anoying. > Is there currently any reason to suppose that from now on > anaconda will not enforce its notion of strong passwords? Yes, because there will be a distro wide policy that anaconda (and other local password changing things) will follow. > In case the current work includes the setting in > stone of anaconda's demand for "strong" passwords, > what can or should those who prefer > encouragement to enforcement do about it? Well, I would personally say you should wait until there was a proposed policy to look at. Now there is: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1455#comment:30 Feel free to comment there or in the fesco meeting tomorrow. If there's a great deal of problem with it we could also push it back to a discussion on the devel list. The frustrating thing for me here is that I have been working on this (as my other piles of tasks permit) for a while now and then people come along and start yelling that it's not changed yet, and tell me that they refuse to wait until there's a proposal, they want to complain to anaconda folks now (who are also waiting until there's a fesco policy). I appreciate that this is a very hot button issue for some folks, and I also appreciate that you want a solution 2 weeks ago, but I'm doing the best I can here to move us all to a nice standard distro policy and we aren't even at alpha yet. kevin
Attachment:
pgpodJQ_WI6UP.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
