On Mon, 05 Mar 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> "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.
Sounds good, although it probably needs to be app specific so that the user
keeps control. How about if the environment variable contained a list of apps
that the user accepted were insecure.
Naturally I realise that 1.2.9 is water under the bridge. Even I don't ask the
impossible :-)
--
Ali Harlow Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research programmer Tel: (020) 7477 8000 X 4348
Applied Vision Research Centre Intl: +44 20 7477 8000 X 4348
City University Fax: (020) 7505 5515
London Intl: +44 20 7505 5515
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
