From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Vitaly Kuznetsov To: devel@lists.altlinux.org In-Reply-To: <20091213224925.GS13584@osdn.org.ua> (Michael Shigorin's message of "Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:49:25 +0200") References: <20091213223508.GK24097@osdn.org.ua> <20091213224925.GS13584@osdn.org.ua> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:09:57 +0300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [devel] [JT] *Kit X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:10:00 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Michael Shigorin writes: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:44:28AM +0300, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> > In short, the problem was that in the Fedora 12 default >> > installation, regular users sitting at the console could install >> > signed packages from any repository that the administrator has >> > enabled. [...] >> Fedora is a "bleeding edge" and thus this is normal. > > The Fedora project has likely learned quite a bit from this > particular controversy, and it seems to be taking the right steps > to avoid a repeat in the future. I think new RHEL will have different defaults ;) Target matters. I don't think it was an indeliberate mistake. Allowing user to install packages is normal for a single user desktop system but it may be fatal for a server. Defaults must differ. -- Vitaly Kuznetsov, ALT Linux