I realized today while looking into a preset request that https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DefaultServices/ does not say anything at all about enabling default services that are not packaged in Fedora.
For a specific example: suppose that a particular VM host provides its guest tools only as a closed-source binary that they ship. Do we permit them to request the inclusion of their service in presets under the reasoning that it would enhance users' performance on those systems, or do we disallow any non-Fedora software from being included in the presets?
I can certainly see arguments for both approaches, so I think it's up to FESCo to make the decision.
It is my opinion that such topics should be discussed on devel list before they are brought to FESCo to make a decision.
So... what do we do with this? @sgallagh maybe start a thread on fedora-devel?
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue assigned to sgallagh - Issue tagged with: stalled
Sorry for the long delay on this. I've started a discussion on the mailing list now.
Metadata Update from @sgallagh: - Issue untagged with: stalled
The discussion on the fedora mailing list didn't yield too many opinions. To summarize: - There is a precedent with the SELinux policy which contains rules for software not included in Fedora, including some proprietary software. - 3rd party packages could carry their own presets, but that'd mostly defeat the purpose to a large extent, because presets allow the enablement configuration to be managed separately from the package. - there was some worry about name conflicts or even a venue for deliberate name hijacking attacks, but if an attacker has an ability to inject rogue rpms, misusing presets seems like a secondary issue.
The last point was discussed independently in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/UWS6MXUPWXAUS7QFRPJROSWTNX25QTO3/ ("RPM name collisions") and name collisions don't seem to be a big problem.
Proposal: presets for third-party services may be provided by Fedora packages.
+1
A week has passed and the proposal got 3 votes incl. @zbyszek.
APPROVED (+3,0,-0)
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue tagged with: pending announcement
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/GLAPJFFTPGTOI36YWCACDX45N3GINTZN/
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue close_status updated to: Accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.