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

Re: Packages removed from frozen

On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 05:38:03AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"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.

"gcc would be something that I would be willing to give special 
dispensation for . . . However, this is not a dispensation that 
should be lightly given. Bootstrapping from scratch should be
kept to ... the build essentials."
Close enough.

>         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.

~ $ fgrep -i ask original_message
~ $

>         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.

~ $ fgrep -i doc original_message
A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.
~ $

No one's opposed to documenting these packages, but it doesn't
really matter to most of us. I never run
any of these packages as root; I run the C compiler as root
(i.e. the compiler for login) which you were so quick to give
dispensation for, and I run a horde of other programs as root
that I don't know if the binary corresponds to the source
(the issue here) - that is, any thing not binary-all. 

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with
square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are.
   -- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU

Reply to: