User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: Security policy oversight needed?

From:  Richard Hughes <hughsient-AT-gmail.com>
To:  Development discussions related to Fedora <fedora-devel-list-AT-redhat.com>
Subject:  Re: Security policy oversight needed?
Date:  Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:38:34 +0000
Message-ID:  <15e53e180911190538r44c3a787t57f9b87d0a76e156@mail.gmail.com>
Archive-link:  Article

2009/11/19 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> It makes sense to me for the upstream defaults to be fairly
> restrictive, with changes being made downstream in distros (and their
> remixes/spins) to loosen those up as needed.  In other words, our
> desktop package group would include whatever was needed to induce the
> desired behavior in the Desktop spin.  A good bit of this issue would
> need to be addressed upstream though.  (Maybe I just repeated what you
> said, not sure if I caught the nuance.)

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and if I was to redo the F12
experience again this is what I would have done. At the moment we're
asking the server spin to essentially close the door, when maybe we
should start with a closed door, and be asking the desktop spin to
open it up a little more.

Richard.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list



(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds