On 10 December 2014 at 00:43, Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On 9 December 2014 at 13:47, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:11:33PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
> >> > have a proposal for a new spin focused on privacy and security — the
> >> > Netizen Spin. (If you're interested, I think that could use
additional
> >> > contributors.)
> >> I was under the impression spins were to be phased out. I could be
> >> wrong, the discussion was about the time of the product proposal.
> >
> > That's wrong; the clear outcome of that discussion was that we want to
> > keep them, and provide more flexiblity and opportunity for spins
> > maintainers as well.
> >
>
> Well that's some good news to come out of this at least.
>
> > Everyone knows that there are improvements to be made, but it's _not_
> > an easy problem. Contributions are welcome towards making that better
> > for F22 and beyond. (Use cases. Design mockups. Code....)
> >
>
> Rather time poor at the moment and not a gnome developer
> unfortunately. Does rather sound like things like rygel need fixed,
> but as I have no intention of ever using it I'm not highly motivated
> to do something about it.
Just like Reindl you make the mistake of thinking that rygel needs to be fixed
or that it's the only service impacted by this scheme. It's not, and it was
pointed out in earlier mails.
You're sniping at me now, and making assumptions. So I get to do this,
please read the fedora code of conduct and be awesome!
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
I have skimmed the links you listed. Like I said, time poor. I see no
explanation of why rygel needs a random port or why it cannot supply
that information to firewalld. The same goes for any others that have
random ports.
--
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk