On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:59:28AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Last I knew, it still had > > > serious security problems. > > > Which ones? I can't see anything in the BTS. > > I wouldn't know them by bug number; previously though, the problem was that > gcjwebplugin didn't have appropriate sandboxing.
Aaargh!! That is fixed now, is it? > > > (BTW, why does the plugin package need to have > > > the upstream version number in its name?) > > > It's a little weird. The package that puts the plugin into firefox dir (via > > symlink) is java-gcj-compat-plugin, but gcjwebplugin-4.1 contains the > > actualy > > object. I suppose when a few versions of gcjwebplugin-X.Y exist, > > java-gcj-compat-plugin will decide which one is more suitable by changing > > the > > dependency and the symlink. > > That sounds like a terrible amount of complexity to me. I can't imagine why > it would ever be beneficial to carry more than one version of gcjwebplugin > around in the archive at a time. Agreed. What do the maintainers think? -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
