Re: Security policy oversight needed?
[Posted November 20, 2009 by jake]
| 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> |
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