On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 02:49:25AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Let me clarify. I am not going to make a decision about this, you are. > Form a consensus (all involved must agree), and I will accept an > implementation of what ever that turns out to be, but I reserve the > right to exclude any negative participants.
This is a case where there will be unhappy users either way - automated updates enabled by default: - Users will complain when extensions lose features on updates or add privacy invading features. I remember this happening to me when "page monitor" updated silently to require using a 3rd party web service. automated updates disabled - As we have seen here in bug#, mailing list and planet debian. I think that as packagers in Debian, we should try to ship software as upstream provides. There are changes we need to do follow the Debian Policy, but no other obligation to follow demands from users to diverge from what the upstream is doing. Every change we make is burden to maintain. Especially in the case of chromium where stable security updates mean rebasing changes to new upstream code. So I would vote for keeping automated updates enabled. Users who want to disable extension autoupdates from chromium webstore are free to persuade upstream to include a checkbox for that in chrome://preferences Riku
