Le Lun 24 Janvier 2005 10:27, Matthew Palmer a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:57:47AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > I'm the current flyspray maintainer ... and I should say I don't > > know what to do with that bug [1] > > > > Upstream, and I agree on the fact that the problem is not > > flyspray's fault. Should I close the bug ? or let it live with > > wontfix for years ? or should I reassign the problem to privoxy ? > > Weird one. Does the bugfix suggested break anything? Perhaps you > could make it a config setting -- if the user *wants* to accept > screwed up cookies, then let them. mmmmm don't like it > This is one of those bugs which, I think, has no ideal solution. > Your judgment ultimately has about as much weight as anyone else's -- > probably more, since you're the maintainer. well, the thing is privoxy has a sick behaviour. if you want to hide cookies values, then it's fine. but put garbage in them ... (i've not tested it myself, so i don't know if this is not only white spaces or anything of that sort, ... but even spaces ... why not put the value to empty string ???) maybe I should only put a warning in README.debian ? but I don't like it either -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpa86NJGumod.pgp
Description: PGP signature