-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/07/2016 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 08:33:37AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Naheem Zaffar >> <naheemzaffar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> ESR will only delay the problem. >>> >>> Can the Fedora build add a secodary key to accept signed >>> extensions? >> >> This is one of the suggested solutions, but it is not currently >> implemented upstream. >> >>> AFAIK the long term plan is todeprecate the current method of >>> extensions in favour of a more browser agnostic approach. >> >> Correct. > > Is it just me, or does it seem odd to take Mozilla to task for > doing something with their (relatively much larger) ecosystem we > also endeavor to do with Fedora's? > Could you explain what you mean? Mozilla's intent is lock-in: they're providing exactly one source from which you can retrieve extensions. With Fedora, we do signature signing for trust reasons, but you are always offered a way to bypass that (or add your own keys, etc.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlaOgeIACgkQeiVVYja6o6PKkACfb8CWB3sXH+FpEPKngPKEtr/z aSMAnRtno33NHpLn3d3T8xFCpC1Vhci/ =1ZRG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
