On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:53 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:23:37PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > > But why? _Any_ package can completely screw up the system with a bad
> > > scriplet or a dependency. Let's take one step back and consider why a
> > > package would need special protections: only when there's something
> > > _tricky_ about the package. We have such special protections for the
> > > kernel (signing), firefox (trademarks), and for bootloaders (signing
> again),
> >
> > Well the fedora-release package could be arguably open to trademark.
>
> Hmm, Fedora as such certainly. But fedora-release itself I don't think so.
> It has a
> /usr/share/licenses/fedora-release/{Fedora-Legal-README.txt,LICENSE}
> which shouldn't be touched, as in any other package, but apart from
> that it's just a bunch of text files.
>
>
Well, there are a number of places where changing the contents of those
text files can have a significant adverse effect on the distribution. In
particular, many packages rely on the ID=, ID_LIKE=, and VARIANT_ID= fields
in os-release to make decisions. Changing those without an understanding of
what might break would be dangerous. I think that's a good argument for
keeping this package under tighter control.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
