[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#676784: Policy §10.5 and .jar file noticeable exception

Le Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 08:30:43AM +0100, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
> On Tue Aug 06 13:38, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
> > Can it simply be "except if it is a .jar file" in parenthesis instead of
> > vague "in the sense that it is meant to be uncompressed with..."?
> We want to write policy to be general and not have 100s of special
> exceptions. In this case what is special is not that it's a jar file, but
> that the user isn't meant to interact with it using standard compressed file
> tools. This is not a state unique to jar files. Even if there aren't any
> other known cases now, we want to write policy in a way that can apply to
> them in the futuer.

Hi all,

I agree that the recommendations should be generic.

I used "unzip" instead "ungzip" in the example because I simply pasted the text
from Bill's comment (676784#49).  Before committing, I wondered if I should
replace "unzip" by "ungzip", I concluded that "unzip" was probably intended
since this is the underlying format of the JAR files, and that we exactly
wanted to make the point that in normal operations one is not expected to run
"unzip" on them.  But if people find it confusing, I can correct by switching
to "unzip", or by adding "or unarchived" after "uncompressed".

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: