Re: Packages removed from frozen
>>"David" == David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> writes:
David> On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:56:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > What do you mean "dispensation"? You're trying to add a special rule
>> > that programs can't build-depends themselves, which isn't found or implied
>> > anywhere in the DFSG or Social Contract. In fact, it contradicts the Social
>> > Contract, which says we will support our users.
>>
>> This is a technical issue, and has nothing to do with the Social Contract.
David> Removing ~40 packages from the archives, several of which have
David> no good alternatives, is not supporting the users who need
David> CVSup, PM3, GNAT, SML, Free Pascal, CMUCL, or any of the other
David> removed packages. It is a social contract issue when a minor
David> technical issue takes precedence over supporting users.
*Sigh*. People obviosly can't red, or comprehend,
english. Pray, where, in the phrase dispensation should not be given
lightly, do you read remove all code? Huh?
Not documenting we have 40 odd security holes that can't be
checked by looking at the source code serves our users even worse.
Read about the C compiler that included a binary trojan when
it compiled itself (without the troan ever appearing in the source
code), or when it compiled login, to see what I mean.
manoj
--
A Riverside, California, health ordinance states that two persons may
not kiss each other without first wiping their lips with carbolized
rosewater.
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: