Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:38:20PM +0100, Michael Holzt wrote:
At least in my eyes it is an absolutely inacceptable behaviour of any of
our maintainers to ignore reasonable wishes by the upstream authors.
I agree. Our packager was wrong. I'm dismayed that more attention wasn't
given to the situation by those who sponsored the uploads and are
responsible for allowing the bad packages into debian. We definately
need to think about that. That doesn't excuse bad behavior on the part
of the upstream maintainer.
So he had to do something about it.
I doesn't seem that he made much effort to contact anyone else in debian
before doing what he did. We're a very well publicized organization, so
it's not like it should have been hard for him to find a contact
address.
is clear that he just stated, that he do not want to further maintain
the package at all, so the way is free for a takeover by another
maintainer who can try to sort things out. Only if this fails too (which
i doubt), we should consider removal of the software.
You don't seem to understand what package removal means. The package
currently in debian is bad and needs to be removed. The current
maintainer doesn't want it. So until someone else picks up the pieces
and cleans up the mess there should be no micq package.
And to all of us: I think we all should think about the way we treat
upstream authors. It is no good to have fights with upstream authors.
Who said that it was?
Try to see and understand the point of the upstream developer.
If you're arguing that Madkiss should have been more responsive I don't
think you'll get much argument (so there's no point arguing.) If you are
trying to defend upstream's actions in this case I'm sorry, but I think
you're on the wrong side. It's been said before, both sides were wrong
here.
Mike Stone
Reply to: