On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:43:29PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Do we know why this is ? Is this an unintended side effect of some > > > other change ? Has someone done this deliberately and if so have they > > > explained what they were trying to achieve ? > > > > > > I can see that the behaviour you describe would be very annoying. > > > > When updating extensions is disabled, it is a "good" thing that you cannot > > install them and use installed ones. > > That's what the original bug was about. > > I'm not sure I have parsed your reply correctly, so let me repeat back > what I think you are saying: > > Since online updates to non-Debian-packaged extensions are disabled, > it is necessary to prevent installation or use of > non-Debian-packaged extensions at all: otherwise, users would be > running extensions without security updates. Indeed. #841401 is more or less this: - my extensions cannot be updated - that's to address some of the concern about unrequested network connections - if you disable updating extensions then you should disable installing them too as the current situation is stupid - done
> Well, the reasoning is sound, but this does not seem like a desirable > situation. That's true. That's why the usual reaction to #841401 outcome is "huh?". > Can we not make the updates work for non-Debian-packaged extensions, > while disabling them for Debian-packaged ones ? > > If we did that then there would no need to disable people's > extensions. I guess the real question is "why updating extensions was disabled in the first place". If chromium phones home only when non-packaged extensions are actually installed then it doesn't happen until the user installs them. I'm sure there are people who would forbid the users from doing that but... -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
