On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 12:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I have now adjusted the draft - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy > - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be reviewed > again by FESco next week. Please raise any potential issues or further > suggestions for adjustments before then. Of course, even if the policy is > accepted by FESCo it will not be set in stone and changes and exceptions can > be added in future as appropriate, but I'd like to have it as good as > possible at first :) thanks all!
==>
In practice, packages which provide one or more of:
* setuid binaries
* PolicyKit policies
* consolehelper configurations
* udev rules
are likely to be affected by this policy
<==
Shouldn't
* D-Bus services on the system bus
be listed there, to make sure that /etc/dbus-1/system.d/*.conf files are
sane? It's just that it is quite a commonly used mechanism.
This was brought up in discussion of one of the first drafts, IIRC, so
perhaps it is intentionally omitted..?
Tim.
*/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
