F21 System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by default
kevin at scrye.com
Fri Apr 11 19:23:20 UTC 2014
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:26:48 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 04:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: The securetty file is empty by
> >> default =
> >> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/securetty_file_is_empty_by_default
> >> >
> >> >Change owner(s): quickbooks<quickbooks.office at gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> >The securetty file is empty by default
> >> >
> >> >There's on-going discussion for this Change on the devel list.
> >> >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/197344.html
> > Fedora Base Working Group discussed this Change on today's meeting
> > (2014-04-11) and tends to support counter proposal to remove
> > securetty entirely from the default PAM configuration (not from
> > distribution) as discussed in the thread mentioned above. Base WG
> > would like to ask FESCo to weight it as part of decision making
> > (once this change hits FESCo meeting).
> Just so it's clear the WG's have now been granted weight in power to
> influence FESCo processes and decision distribution wide, more so
> then non product specific contributors and participants hence forcing
> contributors to seek their approval and accepted as well FESCo.
I'm sure I will regret asking, but:
You are coming to this conclusion how exactly?
The above reads to me like the BaseWG discussed it, decided they liked
some plan and would like FESCo to weight as they see fit that
I personally also like that idea, so if I said:
I thought about this change and decided that I would prefer to remove
sercuretty entirely. I'd like to ask FESCo to weight that in it's
Does that mean I have been granted more weight to influence FESCo ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the devel