On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:57:35PM -0800, Cardenas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:05:21PM +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:09:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader writes: > > >This is under no circumstances acceptable behaviour from upstream. Drop > > >micq from Debian. > > Are you guys nuts? Upstream just wants their software to run > optimally, and the maintainer refuses to do so. What's wrong with > upstream informing users of the situation? So what about doing so sending a mail to d-d, or d-users? Or just putting a note in the sources to be distributed with the package? Or what about putting himself on fuel and threatening with lighting himself on with a matchbox? Putting such a piece of code with the sole intention of produce a denial of service, coded to avoid the maintainer checks is nuts. Is disrespectful with our work, to say less. But I am not putting myself on upstream's side... It is very difficult to say who did worst... mooch -- Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Registered Linux user #66350 proudly using Debian Sid & Linux 2.4.20 Where are you going, Starfish and Friends? --Chad (Charlie's Angels)
Attachment:
pgpSWWmgQ5UsF.pgp
Description: PGP signature