Re: Packages removed from frozen
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 05:34:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I still say the dispensation should not be lightly given -- it
> should only be given where strictly necesary.
As it is in all the circumstances that have been discussed here.
> I have, however,
> amended my stance about restricting it to build depends (not that
> there was any attempt at dialogue -- people muist reaaaaly like flame
> fests here).
You started out by saying we should remove any bootstrapping packages.*
As someone who uses GNAT and SML extensively, such a threat is rather
* "Programs need dispension" && "dispension will only be given for
build-essentials" => "programs not in build-essentials will be be
> Rather than jumping on details, did you even try to see if
> xomething weorkable could be wrought out fo this? Hell, no.
Did you start out with something workable? Hell, no.
> David> ~ $ fgrep -i doc original_message
> David> A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.
> David> ~ $
> Right. You really need things spelled out for you.
You didn't mention documentation in the original. You said they
shouldn't be in Debian. Or is English not your first language?
> David> No one's opposed to documenting these packages, but it doesn't
> David> really matter to most of us.
> That has been eminently clear. However, I suggest that the
> project give two hoots about security.
How about the fact that you download binary packages all the time,
without any proof that it's not a trojan? It would be so simple to
build your binary upload from a source you weren't planning to upload.
Why should I trust Joe Random Debian Developer over Ada Core Technologies
or Lucent Technologies? Not to offend any developers, but you're the paranoid
security person. Why doesn't this passionately worry you?
David Starner - firstname.lastname@example.org
Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with
square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are.
-- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU