On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 09:45:56AM -0500, Elie Rosenblum wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 09:36:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Maybe a move to one of the more free list managers should be made indeed > > > (like writing a majordomo interface for listar or mailman or something like > > > that). > > > > In the meantime I think we should drop majordomo before the release, and > > maybe put out a press release explaining why. > > It's in non-free. Why single it out among non-free licenses? Because they clearly don't have their ducks in a row regarding security, *AND* make it onerous for other people to solve security problems independently? > Whatever happened to the idea of distributing it unchanged, with a > patch that gets applied in postinst? Or if you're worried about having > to change the wrapper code as well, why not distribute it like we do > pine? I might be able to live with the pine idea. That way the user has to take a few more affirmative actions to install this rootshell sieve on his machine. > Majordomo is not inherently unpackagable. "Can" doesn't imply "should". Certainly not when it comes to unfree software. > Unless anybody can find a reason why either of the above solutions is > not acceptable for majordomo, I'd be willing to adopt it if the current > maintainer no longer wishes to support it. I think at a minimum we should quit shipping the "binary" package. -- G. Branden Robinson | If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux | pound of antipasto, would they cancel branden@ecn.purdue.edu | out, leaving him still hungry? roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Scott Adams
Attachment:
pgpmwADFZvr9N.pgp
Description: PGP signature