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

Re: Packages removed from frozen

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

 >> Horse puckey.
 >> This is a technical issue, and has nothing to do with the Social Contract.

 Anthony> It is? It doesn't?

 Anthony> ``I don't like the way people write programming languages in
 Anthony> themselves. Now, sure, for gcc, we'll have to make an
 Anthony> exception, but the rest of them can just get lost.'' doesn't
 Anthony> sound particularly technical.

        I am tempted to say, Horse puckey.  I never say that gcc was
 the only program that should qualify.But if you want to be
 delibrately confrontational, bring it roght on. I can take statement
 to the extreme with the best of them.

 Anthony> So they can't be automatically built for new architectures. Big
 Anthony> deal. That's no reason to get rid of them for everyone.

        You must be imagining things. Who talked about throeing the
 code out by default? I talked about having the package maintainers
 ask for dispensation, to ensure that the package are not putting in
 self dependencies for convenience.

        It wouyld have been far easier for me to ask that latex2html
 be installed in order to build the package, since I could just
 use the installed latex2html to build the html docs.

        Instread, I increased toe configurability of the script, and
 added commandline/env var options for latex2html to look for the libs
 in the source tree, so that it can buyild on a bare system.

 Anthony> If you want a techincal discussion, work out how to automatically and
 Anthony> reliably crosscompile stuff and actually *fix* the problem, rather than
 Anthony> trying to hide the fact that it exists at all.

        Actually, *YOU* are the one trying to brush the issue under
 the carpet. *I* am the one asking that these packages be examined,
 and registered if they can't easily get rid of the self dependency.

        Brushing such potential security risks is a really bad idea,
 and I am appaled that people are opposed to documenting these
 packages in a well known place.

 "Some would sooner die than think.  In fact, they often do." Bertrand
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: