Re: mICQ roundup
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:52:43PM +0200, Pericles Akritides wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 01:22:26PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This wasn't simply a message. It crippled the package for innocent
> > _users_ of the package, who had nothing to do with the argument between
> > the upstream maintainer and Debian maintainer.
> Users have everything to do with packaging quality. As a debian micq
> *user* I appreciated the message and installed the packages directly from
> upstream (trivial).
That is very nice for you, but what about non-i386 users, or those who had
to pay to download that mICQ package, and now must pay again to download
source+build-deps to build their own, or back out to a previous version?
Not (trivial). And even if we disregard this situation, it is still
completely unacceptable for this decision to be forced on _anyone_.
> Actually because of the message I noticed that the package from the
> official repository had replaced the unofficial package that I explicitly
Fantastic. Let's have more Debian packages exit(0) for political reasons so
that users are reminded that they have installed packages from Debian. This
is _not_ a service to users.