Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
* Tore Anderson
> > ..and if you take into account the mood of the discussion, I read
> > your comment as more of an encouragement. He did exactly what he
> > said he'd do, and by doing so demonstrated that you're not doing
> > proper QA on your packages. IMO, you've got a well-deserved slap,
> > and have no reason to sulk over it. Upstream didn't introduce any
> > security holes, nor do I get the impression that he intends to.
* Glenn Maynard
> He didn't say he'd do so in the program, and the fact that he obfuscated
> it indicates that he didn't want it to be found, so it's clear that the
> text you quoted was *not* an indication that he was going to do what he
> did.
He didn't elaborate on exactly _how_ he was going to deliver his message
to the users of the debian-provided packages. I would assume that if
he didn't obfuscate it the package would never have reached the archive,
and thus the message would never have reached the intended audience - I
don't believe any maintainer would knowingly upload a package which did
nothing but state that the package sucked.
Anyway, that he did it in a unexpected (not to mention childish) manner,
doesn't in any way make it "clear" that it was not his meaning to do
so. I can only speculate, but I don't think it's unlikely that he did
exactly what he meant by his, um, "threat".
> I can't believe people are defending the act of slipping obfuscated code
> into a program designed to not be seen by the maintainer and to make
> Debian look stupid.
Please do not attribute opinions to me, that I do not have.
--
Tore Anderson
Reply to: