On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:26:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 04:25:28PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:16:29AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > >> Speaking as a human being, I would suggest that Debian policy should be
> > >> that all "
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 04:25:28PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:16:29AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> >> Speaking as a human being, I would suggest that Debian policy should be
> >> that all "phoning home" MUST be enabled explicitly, and MUST be turned
> >> off b
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Phoning home"):
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:16:29AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > No, I prefer the SHOULD form, because it permit the
> > right thing to be done, giving the debian developer
> > the freedom (and burden) to check what it is bad, and
> > what it i
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes ("Re: Phoning home"):
> These are two separate concerns.
>
> Concern One: What a server does with information as a result of its
> operations;
>
> Concern Two: What network traffic a program makes in its operation.
I think it is a mistake to separate these things in th
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Phoning home"):
> I suppose that apt never updates itself unless you have something
> configured to do so (although does synaptic default to running aptitude
> update periodically?).
We can serve our users better by having our apt phone home to ask if
there are updates, b
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes ("Re: Phoning home"):
> On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 13:54 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > But I was rather surprised to find this situation. It looks like the
> > prospective maintainer was aware of the phoning home but didn't
> > consider it a release-critical bug; they are als
Julian Gilbey writes ("Re: Phoning home"):
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 01:54:11PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think therefore that we should add some statement to policy about
> > phoning home.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > As a starting point:
> >
> > * Software in Debian should not communicate over the
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:27:59PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 07:44:53PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> The problem I see here is that admin != user in all the situations.
> >> IMO it should ask, or at least warn, the user and not the admin.
> >> Because in the
8 matches
Mail list logo
