SELinux RPM scriplet issue annoucement

[Reindl Harald]

Am 24.01.2014 17:34, schrieb Lukas Zapletal:
> One note on that topic:
> 
> I found myself giving karma to an update, while I tested different
> version (actually a completely different build). It would be good if
> giving karma would require to insert a hash or something generated from
> the package itself (rpm -q -qf something package), header or signature.
> Portal could check the hash and only accept karma for those users, who
> obviously installed the package. It could be optional as well.
> 
> This could prevent mis-giving karma while testing different version of a
> package. The portal could instruct user to run specific one (short)
> command to get the hash and to put it in the form.
> 
> This is just an idea. Question arises when the package consist of
> multiple subpackage (only to test the base one?) and also how much
> intrusive this would be for folks

that could be easier solved by force anybody to use "easy-karma" instead the
webinterface because that only asks for the current installed packages

the only thing i wish is that "fedora-easy-karma" would support
a param with a textfile containing the password because i hardly
remember a 35 chars random password and so do it like below for
C&P from the terminal

[root at srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /scripts/easy-karma.sh
#!/usr/bin/bash
echo "PASSWORT: **********************************"
fedora-easy-karma --fas-username="hreindl" --default-comment="works for me"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140124/101291fd/attachment-0001.sig>