On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Simon McVittie <simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk> wrote: > > As a solution for the current release of BlueZ, assuming that rethinking > the Agent API completely is not an option, does the proposed policy at > <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=59;filename=bluetooth.conf;att=1;bug=510644> > need to be vetoed? It seems to me to be non-ideal, but the best we can get > right now; but I still don't fully understand the D-Bus policy language (I'm > not convinced anyone does...) so I could be wrong.
I think that policy is "ok"; but not ideal as you say. It seems extremely unlikely to me that it would introduce any security problem. Regardless hopefully bluez can move to signals over a transition period. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
