Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
Remi VANICAT wrote:
>
> May be, but it seem that some of our user want it, so why forbid them
> to have it.
we don't. users can always fo to the upstream site and get the upstream
.debs or tarball.
> It's the main problem for me here, why do people believed that the
> removal of this package will b e a problem for him ? It will only be a
> problem for some of our user.
people are rightfully afraid that the next flare-up will be more harfull
to our users. the rom -rf $HOME or perhaps just limit it to rm -rf
$HOME/.micq
which is more harfull to our users, removing a potentially trojaned by
upstream package, or include a potentiallu trojanes bu upstream package?
md5sums/gpg sigs will not save you from trojans inserted by upstream.
my opinion is that i _hope_ that all the participants have learned a
little something here: Rüdiger, there are ways of resolving disputes
with packagers (debian-devel, leader@debian.org). Martin: it is not nice
to piss off upstream. all other developers: check over diffs.
i further hope that debian as a whole can come up with some solution to
this micq problem. if it means forking the code, as i thought about
doing, (i thought of the name Debian's iqc, dicq, but that does not
sound right), so be it. if Rüdiger needs to have his application put on
hold, that is also acceptable.
i still see the trojaned micq packages sitting on ftp.us.debian.org,
though.
-john
Reply to: