Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:00:03PM +0100, Davide Puricelli wrote:
> I don't think we should remove micq and I'll try to explain my idea:
> R?diger Kuhlmann, upstream author of micq, with this "anti debian easter
> egg" showed to the world that there are some big problems between him
> and the Debian maintainer of micq, so we should analyze these issues; I
> just read the BTS page of micq, there are a lot of bugs reported by
> him, and #167606 seems to be the "cause of scandal".
> Maybe you and Joey, the stable Release Manager, could had understimate
> the importance of this issue for him, and he had this dumb idea (I want
> to be clear, I'm not justifing him).
Just some random notes, giving a number of different sides, as
I see them to this dispute. In doing so I am trying not to judge
the actions of any people involved.
The author was so annoyed he was willing to risk his reputation in order
to get the message across?
(did he not know he could try posting a message to debian-devel first?)
The common issue raised here in two bug reports is Debian's policy of
not updating packages in woody unless there is a security problem or the
package is badly broken.
Another related issue is that the bug submitter and package maintainer
both argue the case for/against including the package in stable, but it
isn't the package maintainers decision. So the dispute would appear to
be completely pointless.
However is it really appropriate to use the "wontfix" tag in this
situation?
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: