Re: Packages removed from frozen
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 05:38:03AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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."
> 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 - email@example.com
Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with
square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are.
-- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU