On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 06:17:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#405997: should executables be permitted to
> update themselves?"):
> > If azereus is going out and adding things to the users home
> > dir without the users knowledge, that would be one thing.
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 03:10:53PM -0500, Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Manoj wrote:
> > Why doe4s that not apply to iceweasel and gcc?
>
> iceweasel does the same to prevent updates to the debian package from
> upstream,
> but the user always has the option to download the prebu
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I don't know what azareus's UI for this is like but depending on the
>> situation it might be best to make a configuration option, set by
>> default, which suppresses it. For example, if the current
>> code presents dialogues nagging to be allowed to update from upstream,
Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I don't know what azareus's UI for this is like but depending on the
> situation it might be best to make a configuration option, set by
> default, which suppresses it. For example, if the current
> code presents dialogues nagging to be allowed to update from upstream,
> th
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know what azareus's UI for this is like but depending on the
> situation it might be best to make a configuration option, set by
> default, which suppresses it. For example, if the current code presents
> dialogues nagging to be allowed to update
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#405997: should executables be permitted to
update themselves?"):
> If azereus is going out and adding things to the users home
> dir without the users knowledge, that would be one thing. But in this
> case the users has initiated the action -- and trying
On 1/14/07, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
If azereus is going out and adding things to the users home
dir without the users knowledge, that would be one thing. But in this
case the users has initiated the action -- and trying to save the
user from themselves is not on
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts"):
> Hi,
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Some tools don't like it at all (e.g sbuild), causing confusing
> > behaviour, based on the order of entries
8 matches
Mail list logo
