View Single Post
javispedro's Avatar
Posts: 2,355 | Thanked: 5,249 times | Joined on Jan 2009 @ Barcelona
#25
Originally Posted by szopin View Post
Sorry, too new to have experienced that (though I have been closely watching this forum for a year at least and I cannot for the life of me come up with similar thread/discussion, pls share)
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=683
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=56094
https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11709
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=284

Originally Posted by szopin View Post
Trivial cases of autobuilder checks I hope we are discussing. If so, we just agreed that AB while having limited ability to control packages submitted to it, lacks any degree of security control (if we'd start listing how many pakages have no maintainer as libxau6 we'd probably break this forum). True, but I know this only to be the case for -devel. Hoping this is not the case with extras(-testing)
There is NO security at all in either extras or extras-testing. It even says so in the repository www page! Everyone can upload a rm -rf / script there.

Which is why I think that those who blindly upgrade with it enabled must love risk more than anything...
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post: