[rfc][icedtea-web] policytool in itweb-settings
Jiri Vanek
jvanek at redhat.com
Mon Jan 27 06:43:27 PST 2014
On 01/24/2014 08:34 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> On 01/21/2014 02:35 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>> On 01/21/2014 12:29 PM, Jacob Wisor wrote:
>>> On 01/21/2014 05:52 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> I am not talking about technical effects. I am talking about effects on support staff and admins.
>>> They may not be familiar with J2SE's policy system yet when their user's and customers start
>>> calling in for help. You know, it is not uncommon for large organizations that provide in-house
>>> support to have their staff (really, this does sometimes happen indeed!) trained for a specific
>>> set of applications and thus features. They truly rely on specific feature sets and incremental
>>> evolution of software. Of course, this feature will probably not generate as many support calls
>>> as resetting passwords, but lets not make those people's lives miserable by introducing effects
>>> that they assumed not to exist with the current minor version release. So please, just do all of
>>> us a favor and do not backport it. Believe me, I know what I am talking about.
>>>
>>> Jacob
>>
>> Well, I see what you mean. I don't really see it causing problems but "better safe than sorry" I
>> suppose.
>>
>> Jiri, do you have a compelling argument against Jacob's? ;)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> After much discussion and debate on IRC, I've been convinced to go ahead and create a 1.4 backport
> patch and propose it here. It is attached. Here is the justification for the backport as far as I
> remember:
>
> (1) The underlying feature already exists, this simply makes it more accessible/visible
> (2) The permission system is constructive only, and so it is very difficult to imagine a scenario
> where a user's custom policy file can possibly break an application. This would mean the application
> depends on being denied runtime permissions. Most users are probably never going to bother trying
> this, and if they do, it should be completely harmless
>
> And the arguments against backporting:
>
> (3) Additional load on IT support people in companies that are using IcedTea-Web, as this is a "new
> feature" being introduced within the same minor version number
> -- However, this is thought to be negligible because of (2) above
>
> Personally, I do not care much either way. I don't believe there is any strong reason to not
> backport, and I also don't see much benefit to backport. This is because I consider the custom
> policy editing to be of little use without functionality similar to what is provided by the "Run In
> Sandbox button" patch (ie introducing a way to run signed applets with a restricted permissions set
> rather than granting AllPermission immediately and universally), which certainly will not be
> backported to 1.4.
>
> Thanks,
>
I'm happy for this backport. Please go on. Please dont forget to backport also changes noted in
Re: /hg/icedtea-web: Improve PolicyTool launch method in PolicyPanel thread
You can push now and then push the rest, or wait until those are resolved and push together.
Thanx
J.
More information about the distro-pkg-dev
mailing list