Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> What? Once the package maintainer discovered the problem, he posted to
> debian-devel asking to have the package removed. (This may not be the
> correct way to have a package removed from the archive, but it was
> certainly his intent.)
I do not blame Martin.
Intentions are good, Actions are what i (as a user) (would) ask for.
> However, this is irrelevant; the broken package shouldn't currently be
> in use in any production environments, and it doesn't "rm -rf ~/*", so
> it's not urgent; there's plenty of time to discuss what should be done.
It was called a poison pill, a trojan on this Mailinglist. Pre-DWN #7
even calls it harmful.
I (again as user) would ask why a trojaned, harmful Package was not
removed from the Package-Pool immediately.
Again i do not blame anyone, since we probably all know that the code we
are talking of was not harmful besides the Fact that it printed a stupid
message and did an exit() afterwards (if EXTRAVERSION was not set -as
requested by upstream- AND after a certain time-point AND if $USER was
not madkiss AND the Build-System is a debian).
What iam trying to show are questions of Users that might be asked when
they experience the Situation that "trojaned and harmful" Packages were
not removed from the Pool immediately.
-rg
--
| Rico -mc- Gloeckner
| mv ~/.signature `finger mc@ukeer.de`
Reply to: