On 2014-12-10 19:04, Schaufler, Casey wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karol >> Lewandowski >> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:28 AM >> To: Dominig ar Foll (Intel OTC); [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Dev] Forcing non agreed architecture changes is not acceptable. >> >> On 2014-12-10 10:42, Dominig ar Foll (Intel OTC) wrote:
>>> In that specific case, if you need Kdbus in a profile before than it is >>> agree to be generalised in Common, please make an agreement with >> Common >>> to enable it with a clean model. >> >> As for kdbus - it's been agreed 3.0 feature before Tizen:Common, and >> Generic were established. Heck, it's even on official wiki page so >> please tell me why we do have to agree things that were already accepted? > > NO! It is *not* an agreed on 3.0 feature!I have been adamant on this > issue. Until *all* the security model issues are addressed kbdus cannot > be considered. I agree you disagreed, and for valid reasons. On the other hand kdbus was never removed from 3.0 feature list. You might not consider it binding, some do. Yay for unrealistic goals. Believe me I went to great lenghts to find middle ground here. Changes we are pushing are absolutely minimal and are already merged in both mainline kernel and upstream systemd. This thread was started as reaction to patch that adds single system user to /etc/passwd. Surely, it could have been handled better but I'm confident that reaction would be quite different if magic word - "kdbus" - wouldn't be used. It's really hard to not call this behaviour double-standard. Cheers, -- Karol Lewandowski, Samsung R&D Institute Poland _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
