Re: Help with strings for "solution" for desktop file "virus" problem

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:04 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Its true that all of these *could* and *should* mark the file as
> > executable, however since we never demanded that before this would be a
> > regression for many users. Both for old created desktop files and for
> > new ones created by non-updated apps.
> 
> Why is this a problem ?
> 
> - You can chmod the existing desktop files on an upgrade

Certainly we should do this. 
Do we have any standard place for upgrades like this during login?

> - If you meet one that appears not to have been updated you can ask the
>   user/fix it with their permission

You mean describing how to do this manually in the dialog rather than
asking the user if they want to do this? I don't see how this is an
increase in security, it seems just to be a larger amount of manual work
for something that can happen in perfectly legitime cases.