Hi, * Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> [2012-07-23 11:22]: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:55:49 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 à 10:46 +0200, Julien Cristau a écrit : > > > Package: gnome-shell > > > Version: 3.4.1-8 > > > Severity: serious > > > > > > The default browser should be one that has at least vaguely credible > > > security support, IMO. epiphany doesn't qualify, chromium or iceweasel > > > probably would. > > > > As explained on IRC, they would if at the *very least* they supported > > GTK3. > > > I don't think "doesn't support gtk3" can be more of a blocker than "has > 0 security support". I agree it's not ideal, but it doesn't seem > there's much of a choice.
FWIW, I do support Julien's request to change this. Without going into detail why I think that security should have priority here, why is gtk3 support even an issue? Can you explain this a little further? Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - n...@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0AAAA For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
pgpGUt8PKITnO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
