Re: GTK+-1.2.9 Released

[Havoc Pennington]

"J. Ali Harlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
w 
> I do think you are being needlessly heavy handed. Even calling
> gets(), which everybody agrees is not on, doesn't actually break the
> application. And as I say, I will subvert the check if I have to. At
> least if you supply a method of defeating the check you can still
> issue a warning to the user and everything will be out in the open.
> 

Right. Adding something like a GTK_ALLOW_INSECURE environment variable
doesn't seem like a terrible idea, though it's too late to do so for
1.2.9.

Havoc


_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list