[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intent to package: eggdrop

On 5 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Hi,
> 	I guess we shold also remove rm. That program can be downright
>  nasty in the hands of the uninitiated. What about mkfs? oh, man, the
>  kind of damage _that_ does. Oh, you say that that can only harm the
>  local machine? Well, we should take away all the MTA's then (is spam
>  not 80% of all traffic now?). And all the mail user againts (quite
>  dangerous in the hands of the uninitiated, and can reall mess up
>  peoples mailboxes).
> 	Since when have we refused to package things cause they are
>  ``dangerous'' or not the right religion? Stopping egg drop is a bad
>  precedent (it is not as if egg drop is not freely available at
>  that). 
> 	If you do not make mistakes, you can't learn that much
>  either. 

I know why you are so cynical and you may be right. It was not me who
actively opposed to the packaging of eggdrop in the previous discussion
about this subject. But the result from that discussion was that eggdrop
wasn't packaged, so I asked for another discussion. I don't really have a
strong opinion in this case, so go ahead and package eggdrop if you like.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: