-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/24/2014 04:48 PM, R P Herrold wrote:This is a follow-on to a lengthy discussion occurring on the
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Agenda Topics: * tcpwrappers (Does Fedora Server want to support
>> them?)
>>
>> I was hoping we could also hear from QA and rel-eng tomorrow, but
>> I haven't heard confirmation one way or another whether they will
>> have anything to say.
>
> I see Matt's post earlier today checking the pipermail archive.
> For some reason it appears in broken threading there, and I do not
> recall seeing the earlier piece pass through my eyes ;) [1]
>
> Goodness ... how does one do layered defense in depth by REMOVING
> existing function? I must have missed this part of an earlier
> thread
>
fedora-devel mailing list. It has been suggested that, due to its age,
lack of maintenance and general insecurity that perhaps Fedora should
take a stance and remove it from the distribution, instead
recommending more modern alternatives.
Do not construe this statement as either support for or opposition to
this suggestion.
Not necessarily true. One of Fedora's stated purposes is to be
> 'want' ???
>
> Anything purporting to be able to perform in server space does not
> have a choice but to support wrappers
>
"First". While most people construe this to mean "has the latest
version of all packages", this can also mean that Fedora should lead
the charge in migrating away from old technology if it deems that it
is holding back innovation.