On Jul 28, 2015 6:07 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:39:55 -0500 (CDT) > Michael Hennebry <henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> 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 > > -- > test mailing list > test@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Thanks for working on this, Kevin. Personal opinions aside, I know you're very thorough and dedicated, and it is appreciated wholeheartedly. --Pete
-- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
