Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
> >--[Martin Loschwitz]--<email@example.com>
> > I have to admit that not setting EXTRAVERSION in debian/rules is a bug, ok,
> Okay, fine. It's just that you ignored my questions why you removed it, just
> like pretty much anything?
> > but not setting such an un-important variable (it _is_ unimportant after all)
> It is unimportant to you.
> > should not lead to a behaviour like the one described above.
> If you require to be tripped till you fall onto your mouth before you start
> listening, then that's what's gonna happen.
This is such a childish behavior that I hope people will draw their
conclusions and not use micq anymore. I admit that Martin did not
maintain micq very well and I can understand that you are annoyed.
However, this is not the way to deal with it. I am not in favor of
dropping micq from Debian, I just do not see sufficient reason for it.
However, I strongly advise the AM of Ruediger (Joerg Jaspert) to take
his immature behavior into account when processing his application.
This is not the way Debian developers should resolve their conflicts.
So please, Ruediger, release a new upstream version without that
idiotic code, and please, Martin, orphan or RFA the package instead of
requesting removal. Maybe you could even apologize to each other...
> > with Debian anymore (especially since nobody knows what idea upstream will have
> > as next, maybe it's a very funny 'rm -rf /'?).
> Y'know, that's funny. I guess you know that the difference between a binary
> dying the maintainer-sucks-death and a binary deleting stuff is more than
> just quantity.
Yes, this time you only wanted to hit Martin, but who knows what
happens when you are totally pissed with the whole of Debian? It is
a different thing, but your actions do not really strengthen the
confidence in your knowing what you are doing.
> >--[Anthony Towns]--<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > So anyway, as a new maintainer candidate who's apparently already passed
> > the various checks, what are your thoughts on:
> Y'know, it's so amusing how you turn the whole issue into a lecture...
It is apparently necessary when people behave like minors...
> Removing an author of a program from the authors list is neither nice nor
> legal. The other bug about unstable is just as much a problem because it
> reduces the usability of the package to near zero even though this could be
> fixed trivially. Please don't tell that these changes would affect
> stability. That's just stubbornes for the sake of following (existing or
> pretended) rules.
However, that is the decision of the stable release manager and
not of Martin. People have been known to disagree with Joey about
things, and you are free to do so.
> > and you Rüdiger, remove this stupid "easter egg"
> There's nothing to remove. Just don't compile it in. That means setting the
> EXTRAVERSION to a value ("Debian" being preferred, anything starting with
> "Official " strongly rejected).
Grow up and don't pretend that there is no issue with this.
Extortion will not get you anywhere in Debian. (At least I
hope it won't.)