On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Ralf Mardorf <[email protected]> wrote: > that's a misunderstanding. I don't know if Det has got a problem. Det seems > to behave strange regarding impressions from Dave and Pedro, but I don't know > an evidence that Det does or does not. What I noticed is that users > considered the comments as a discussion and support forum and I don't know > how to value Det comments.
Mmm, but you said "at least one maintainer seems to suffer from something like a collecting mania", weren't you referring to Det? >> I agree with taking a look at packages (I would add a "Flag as >> compromised/virus" link, which has a similar effect to "Flag package >> out-of-date"). > > Less is more... Not always. I think adding a "flag as compromised" button could be useful in this case. The current "flag as out-of-date" already serves a "warning" function for the users, but it can be easily removed by a malicious maintainer. The "compromised/virus" flag I'm talking about should be removable only by a TU/dev. This also means that while a wrong out-of-date flag is not a big deal, a wrong compromised flag should yield harder consequences, in order to avoid abuse. -- William
