sense of packaging firefox' addons?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 22:34 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> 2008/2/27 Peter Gordon <peter at thecodergeek.com>:
> > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 21:35 +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think we should package extensions, but what do you think about
> >  > that situation in U?
> >
> >  Aside from the issues already mentioned in this thread, I think other
> >  reasons to have them packaged is _trust_ and _quality_.
> >
> >  For example, would you install the extension from a website which you're
> >  not familiar with...or would you install it from the same place from
> >  where you install every other software on your computer?
> 
> 
> So addons.mozilla.org is less trustable than the random Fedora mirror?

When the signature is verified, I would trust a fedora mirror more than
mozilla.org.  

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080228/364dbda7/attachment.sig>