Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:05 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: maintainer-feedback requested: [Bug 217844] devel/gvfs Message-ID: <bug-217844-6497-e6ZEV2prqJ@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-217844-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-217844-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
q5sys <jt@ixsystems.com> has reassigned Bugzilla Automation <bugzilla@FreeBSD.org>'s request for maintainer-feedback to gnome@FreeBSD.o= rg: Bug 217844: devel/gvfs https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D217844 --- Description --- Due to the wikileaks dump of Vault7, we know there is a 0-day against HALd.= =20 Since HALd is mostly unused on the linux side, its very unlikely that it wi= ll get patched since most distros are using systemd now. gvfs can build without HAL support. I ran gvfs-lite on linux for quite a w= hile back in the days that I was a linux distro dev. Should we disable hal in gvfs for this reason? I realize that some programs that rely on gvfs with hal will loose some functionality, so it comes down = to the issue of what's more important. Security or Features.=20=20 I personally side with security, but this isn't my port, so it's not my cho= ice to decide.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-217844-6497-e6ZEV2prqJ>