On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:07:36PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I agree with the risk of deanonymization, however you have to look at the
> > consequence: we only publish agregated results, not individual reports, so
> > this
> >
Quoting Helmut Grohne (hel...@subdivi.de):
> Sorry, but given these issues I currently recommend not using popcon to
> people who ask me.
This discussion starts to annoy me, to say the least.
Could please ultra-paranoid people propose patches instead of telling
the popcon maintainer what he sho
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I agree with the risk of deanonymization, however you have to look at the
> consequence: we only publish agregated results, not individual reports, so
> this
> is only leaking whether someone is reporting or not, this does not leak
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:57:55AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> I think the problem is worse than Paul Wise outlines. The package
> description claims anonymity. This is only true if it cannot be
> trivially defeated.
>
> The common use case for equivs is to create a package based on the
> hostna
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 09:57 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Imo the default for popcon should be only listing packages that
> originate from Debian. Everything else is none of our business.
I strongly disagree with this. The unknown packages index of popcon is
one of the most useful parts of it. It
I think the problem is worse than Paul Wise outlines. The package
description claims anonymity. This is only true if it cannot be
trivially defeated.
The common use case for equivs is to create a package based on the
hostname. Gladly popcon gives us numbers[1]. So about 8% of the
submitters are us
6 matches
Mail list logo
