subject:"Re\: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation"

Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

2013-11-09 Thread Matthew Miller

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 I don't really have a problem in believing that but it would be useful to
 know in more detail how the initial proposals came to be (who were
 involved?  what problems are we trying to solve?  what are failures of the
 current model?  did it go through Red Hat management internally before
 being proposed and is more headcount being allotted?  Was Fedora Board and
 FESCo members aware that a proposal were coming through and what was their
 rationale for choosing to go forward? etc)

Did you see my message in July before Flock, and my talk there? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4dNP9DiaXc - if this link is broken it's
 because I'm on the train and yourube is blocked

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/186323.html

http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/

And I think that answers most of your questions, or at least provides a
starting point for them. Overall, the process is basically what you see in
public and I've tried to make this as transparent as possible.

I did discuss the idea with my manager (Denise Dumas, Director of Platform
Engineering) to make sure she would support me in spending time developing
it. She has promised (including to everyone at Flock) to provide resources
where we can make a good case for them (and I think we can!). I also talked
with a few people both inside and outside of Red Hat to help adjust the
initial presentation and message, and I presented it to get feedback from a
handful of groups internally before Flock.

Mostly, though, there was very little that you can't see on this and other
mailing lists and in Fedora IRC logs. 

The part about three products came from Stephen Gallagher at Flock, and he
can take both credit and blame for that :). To me, that provides a practical
answer to how do we deliver something out of these policy rings I
proposed, which was kind of a missing piece so I went with it. If you have
solutions to other missing pieces I'll back those too.


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  mat...@fedoraproject.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

2013-11-09 Thread Rahul Sundaram

Hi


On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:


 I did discuss the idea with my manager (Denise Dumas, Director of Platform
 Engineering) to make sure she would support me in spending time developing
 it. She has promised (including to everyone at Flock) to provide resources
 where we can make a good case for them (and I think we can!). I also talked
 with a few people both inside and outside of Red Hat to help adjust the
 initial presentation and message, and I presented it to get feedback from a
 handful of groups internally before Flock.

 Mostly, though, there was very little that you can't see on this and other
 mailing lists and in Fedora IRC logs.


These are the key parts that I wanted to confirm.  Thanks.

Rahul
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

2013-11-08 Thread Mattias Ellert

tor 2013-11-07 klockan 09:14 + skrev Peter Robinson:

 I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the
 vast majority of contributors either like the change or aren't
 bothered by it.

Just so that my silence is not counted as approval. I disapprove.

Mattias



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

2013-11-08 Thread Michael scherer

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
 On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de 
 wrote:
  On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
  Is there a technical reason why we can't use their packaging format,
  interpreting it with our technologies but staying compatible?
 
  Well, the most relevant bit is that they use apparmor for
  sandboxing. Nobody else uses that.
 
 Are the packages expected to ship their own apparmor policy?
 That would appear to be at odds with the idea of protecting against
 malicious packages.  If they aren't expected to ship their own, could
 we implement the same sandboxing policy using SELinux?
 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppDevUploadProcess seems to suggest Ubuntu
 will be using some higher-level profile format, not raw AppArmor.)

The whole plan is here :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Specifications/ApplicationConfinement

Looking at :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Specifications/ApplicationConfinement/Manifest

I would say no.

From a quick look, some abstraction are quite apparmor specific, see the concept
of read_path, which is something we can hardly translate to selinux ( since
apparmor use path, while selinux use a 2 tier system with label assigned to
path, and then privileges assigned based on label ).

What we could do is to have a better abstraction that would be apparmor
and selinux comptaible. Since despites what Lennart claim, AppArmor is also
used by Opensuse. And I am sure people using smackd ( such as intel people ) 
would
be delighted to not be left in the cold. SELinux is still pretty RH/Fedora 
specific,
even if Debian and gentoo support it in theory ( in practice, Debian didn't 
seems to
support it that well ).

  And I don't think it is a good idea to use .deb as an image format.
 .deb is just an ar archive; if this were the only difference, it would
 not be worth fragmenting the ecosystem over IMHO.  (Especially if the
 GNOME apps alternative is a compressed disk image, which saves disk
 space and costs extra CPU time and memory, making exactly the wrong
 tradeoff in most situations AFAICS.)

While I do not see any obvious problem into using deb, I do not think it will
bring much gain. It will matter for people managing the low level format,
ie few people. Reusing the manifests ( if it was doable ) would have yield much
more gain. 

-- 
Michael Scherer
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

2013-11-08 Thread Michael Cronenworth


Michael scherer wrote:

SELinux is still pretty RH/Fedora specific,
even if Debian and gentoo support it in theory ( in practice, Debian didn't 
seems to
support it that well ).


Millions of Android devices now have SELinux. Android 4.3 enabled SELinux and 
defaults to Permissive. Android 4.4 defaults to Enforcing.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

2013-11-08 Thread Michael scherer

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

I'm still slightly out of sync with the fedora.next stuff (REALLY picked
a bad time to go on vacation), but it does seem to me that a decent
amount of 'mature reflection' was done on it before it was approved, at
least.

I don't really have a problem in believing that but it would be useful to
know in more detail how the initial proposals came to be (who were
involved? what problems are we trying to solve? what are failures of the
current model? did it go through Red Hat management internally before
being proposed and is more headcount being allotted? Was Fedora Board and
FESCo members aware that a proposal were coming through and what was their
rationale for choosing to go forward? etc)

I suspect Mattew discussed this around him before, as anything anyone would
propose. Would chatting with Spot on IRC count as going with Red Hat management,
or just 2 community member talking together ? Because the outcome would be the
same. But the

The proposal was discussed IRL during Flock, the proposal was discussed here
before[1]
and got lot of feedback, the proposal was checked by Board[3] , by FESCO[2].

And I think this was in line with the discussion on the whole product or
platform
on the Board mailling list, who was started by the user base discussion
initiated
by Robyn [4].

So it all boil down to thing have changed, and so we think we should also do
some changes, for
all those reasons.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/186323.html
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1158
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/boardproposal
[4]
http://wordshack.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/board-meeting-topic-for-the-day-user-base-aka-target-audience/

--
Michael Scherer
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 288 matches

Mail list logo