On 15 Jun 2016 17:25, "Matthew Miller" <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:44:27PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > Considering how this actively negates the security of our distribution and > > how this is being promoted in the media, with them pointing to the > > snapcraft site and the instructions there with COPR looking like it's on > > approved Fedora infrastructure (for those who don't understand anyone can > > COPR and there is no review) I honestly wonder if this is a good case for > > pulling a COPR repo... > > Would FESCO have authority here or is that going to be inadvisable a road? > > There are plenty of things packaged in COPR which don't work with > SELinux or are otherwise even more horrible. That's okay; it's one of > the reasons we have COPR in the first place. Some things will > "incubate" there and hopefully become less horrible (and maybe even > migrate into the distro proper). Other things might stay terrible > forever. In this particular case, though, given the note about SELinux > support being planned, it looks like it's the better of the two > situations, really. > > --
But are those projects issuing press releases and promoting their semi broken software across the various tech sites? But you do have a point. It's going to have to be something that those of us supporting in IRC check for when someone has issues with their browser or libreoffice I suppose.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
