On 15 Jun 2016 17:25, "Matthew Miller" <mattdm@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.