Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
🚧 Test build enqueued. |
Contributor
|
🚧 Started test build. |
Contributor
|
❌ Test build was cancelled. Help
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Flatpaks should not have write access to socket files, like
xdg-run/pipewire-0. Bidirectional communication is possible regardless of the suffix, so a benevolent app sees no difference. While it shouldn't be possible in theory, it would be best to prevent the possibility of deleting or modifying the socket itself. Flathub maintainers typically request this for new submissions.https://discourse.flathub.org/t/what-is-the-difference-if-the-pipewire-socket-is-read-only/11951/7