--nextPart4293792.cCEKN4Qg63 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary-01=_TuKpJ0Smc3J1TLP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Boundary-01=_TuKpJ0Smc3J1TLP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 24 February 2009, John Tapsell wrote: > 2009/2/24 David Faure : > > There is no migration tool, users are supposed to make executable by ha= nd > > the few desktop files that they use from $HOME or Desktop... Only they > > can tell if it's (1) (2) or (3), that's the whole point of the security > > measure. > > From the xdg list, the gnome guys are adding a migration tool. Might > be worth you joining and voicing your objections against the idea > there. Or at the very least against the idea of doing it automatically without use= r=20 intervention. It's a different thing if the user asks for it. It still doesn't guarantee every .desktop file that users need will be foun= d=20 though, so I believe some kind of dialog will be necessary. I know they ha= ve=20 code now to perform the permissions upgrade so the dialog itself shouldn't = be=20 too hard I would imagine. Regards, - Michael Pyne --Boundary-01=_TuKpJ0Smc3J1TLP Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday 24 February 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
> 2009/2/24 David Faure <faure@kde.org>:
> > There is no migration tool, users are supposed to make executable by hand
> > the few desktop files that they use from $HOME or Desktop... Only they
> > can tell if it's (1) (2) or (3), that's the whole point of the security
> > measure.
>
> From the xdg list, the gnome guys are adding a migration tool. Might
> be worth you joining and voicing your objections against the idea
> there.


Or at the very least against the idea of doing it automatically without user intervention. It's a different thing if the user asks for it.


It still doesn't guarantee every .desktop file that users need will be found though, so I believe some kind of dialog will be necessary. I know they have code now to perform the permissions upgrade so the dialog itself shouldn't be too hard I would imagine.


Regards,
- Michael Pyne

--Boundary-01=_TuKpJ0Smc3J1TLP-- --nextPart4293792.cCEKN4Qg63 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmkq5MACgkQqjQYp5Omm0rRcACgwk0NWH/KUhA4NZwk8tyJoODq KcQAnjcXAl+Oz59/hvz/wTzwRbu4A0vT =SpNN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4293792.cCEKN4Qg63--