-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03/24/2014 04:48 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Agenda Topics: * tcpwrappers (Does Fedora Server want to support
> I was hoping we could also hear from QA and rel-eng tomorrow, but
> I haven't heard confirmation one way or another whether they will
> have anything to say.
I see Matt's post earlier today checking the pipermail archive.
For some reason it appears in broken threading there, and I do not
recall seeing the earlier piece pass through my eyes ;) 
Goodness ... how does one do layered defense in depth by REMOVING
existing function? I must have missed this part of an earlier
This is a follow-on to a lengthy discussion occurring on the
fedora-devel mailing list. It has been suggested that, due to its age,
lack of maintenance and general insecurity that perhaps Fedora should
take a stance and remove it from the distribution, instead
recommending more modern alternatives.
Do not construe this statement as either support for or opposition to
Anything purporting to be able to perform in server space does not
have a choice but to support wrappers
Not necessarily true. One of Fedora's stated purposes is to be
"First". While most people construe this to mean "has the latest
version of all packages", this can also mean that Fedora should lead
the charge in migrating away from old technology if it deems that it
is holding back innovation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----