<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - networkd lacks access to hostnamed" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81626#c7">Comment # 7</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - networkd lacks access to hostnamed" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81626">bug 81626</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:lennart@poettering.net" title="Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net>"> Lennart Poettering</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=81626#c6">comment #6</a>) > > Hmm? All kinds of packages install files in > > /usr/share/polkit-1/rules.d/, and I think > > that's totally and OK thing to do. > > That's a weird excuse, but please go ahead. I'm just relying on polkit docs > here, which say (polkit(8)): > > "In particular, applications, mechanisms and general-purpose operating > systems must never include any authorization rules." > > If that rule was never enforced, nor considered valuable, there is no reason > to adhere to it. I am a bit puzzled by that. What's the rationale here? I mean this is neither current practice, nor do I get why? I mean, we need some way how we can ship vendor supplied default policies, and I am pretty sure we shouldn't come up with a a third layer of policy to enforce stuff like this. Also, why is there even /usr/share/polkit-1/rules.d/ if it's not for the package vendor to fill with stuff? I guess I should ping davidz about this.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>