*countable infinities only
drago01 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 18:26:33 UTC 2012
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> inode0 wrote:
>>> Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
>>> against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
>>> hope no one would consider doing it.
>> I agree. Either Fedora supports "Secure" Boot or it doesn't, doing this per
>> package is a very bad idea (unless there's a technical reason requiring it).
> I think doing this at the software level is to be left to the software
> developer's discretion. And the software developer has all the rights
> to do so, for either technical or philosophical reasons.
> I am more concerned about the package maintenance level. At the
> package maintenance level, it does not make sense to patch against the
> upstream decision. On the other hand, a package maintainer should have
> the right to not support users filing bugs that potentially originate
> from secure boot.
If that really happens (I doubt it but still) you are free to reassign
the bug to the packages responsible for implementing secureboot.
Simply refusing to run because secureboot is enabled (unless there are
technical reasons) is simply "limiting the users freedom in the name
of freedom" which is unacceptable.
> This, I think, is equivalent to the fact that a
> provenpackager is not responsible for all the packages in the
> distribution, although he has the necessary permissions for
More information about the devel