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

Proposal for removal of mICQ package



Most of you have probably already noticed it, but i am going to describe the
situation one more time here so it gets stored in an archive somewhere.

As of mICQ 0.4.10.1, the source code includes some bits that prevent mICQ 
from starting up on Debian boxes in specific (if EXTRAVERSION is not set to 
some value at compile time and the username you run the program with is not 
'madkiss').

In fact, at first users think that mICQ is starting up perfectly normal, but
after the client got logged in into the server, it prints the following
message and exits after that:

You're using the mICQ package provided by Debian. Since the Debian maintainer 
is extremely uncooperative, you're adviced to use the better qu ality package 
from micq.org. Simply add the follow ing line to your /etc/apt/sources.list to 
track stable versions of mICQ:
deb http://www.micq.org/debian stable main
To track CVS snapshots, add:
deb http://www.micq.org/debian testing main
Source packages may be retrieved similarly.

This code can be found in file "src/preferences.c" in mICQ source code,
starting at line 114.

md5sum of the upstream-tarball that contains this version of preferences.c:
c0c84ed9b5df0d9ced060a9eed11d36b  micq-0.4.10.1.tgz

I have to admit that not setting EXTRAVERSION in debian/rules is a bug, ok,
but not setting such an un-important variable (it _is_ unimportant after all)
should not lead to a behaviour like the one described above. It looks like the
only intention behind this code is to achieve an object lesson effect for 
the maintainer, in cleartext, me.

Again, this "easter egg" is debian specific - it will only occur on computers
running Debian and using the official Debian mICQ package.

In my opinion, with this step, mICQ has proven as dishonorable to be distributed 
with Debian anymore (especially since nobody knows what idea upstream will have 
as next, maybe it's a very funny 'rm -rf /'?). Thus, i would like to request 
removal of the package from distribution.

Additionally, I suggest to consider to add this piece of software to the "unable
to package" list[1].

If there are any objections or comments on this, please let me know. I'm
subscribed to debian-devel, so there is no need to CC me.

[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package

-- 
  .''`.   Name: Martin Loschwitz
 : :'  :  E-Mail: madkiss@madkiss.org
 `. `'`   www: http://www.madkiss.org/ 
   `-     Use Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org    

Attachment: pgpuWoNu0yT7p.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: