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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

First: I'm on this list for the next time. No need to CC: me.

>--[Martin Loschwitz]--<madkiss@madkiss.org>

> I have to admit that not setting EXTRAVERSION in debian/rules is a bug, ok,

Okay, fine. It's just that you ignored my questions why you removed it, just
like pretty much anything?


> but not setting such an un-important variable (it _is_ unimportant after all)

It is unimportant to you.

> should not lead to a behaviour like the one described above.

If you require to be tripped till you fall onto your mouth before you start
listening, then that's what's gonna happen.

> with Debian anymore (especially since nobody knows what idea upstream will have 
> as next, maybe it's a very funny 'rm -rf /'?).

Y'know, that's funny. I guess you know that the difference between a binary
dying the maintainer-sucks-death and a binary deleting stuff is more than
just quantity.

> Thus, i would like to request removal of the package from distribution.

If you don't want to pretend to maintain it anymore, just orphan it.

>--[Anthony Towns]--<aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

> So anyway, as a new maintainer candidate who's apparently already passed
> the various checks, what are your thoughts on:

Y'know, it's so amusing how you turn the whole issue into a lecture...

>--[Davide Puricelli]--<evo@debian.org>

> just read the BTS page of micq, there are a lot of bugs reported by
> him, and #167606 seems to be the "cause of scandal".

I filed the bugs against unstable only after someone complained loudly why I
hadn't done so. Most are that kind of stuff that can be done when you're
doing something anyway and won't bring down the world if not fixed
immediately. So the problem is less the bugs itself than the ignorance of
the maintainer.

> Maybe you and Joey, the stable Release Manager, could had understimate
> the importance of this issue for him,

Removing an author of a program from the authors list is neither nice nor
legal. The other bug about unstable is just as much a problem because it
reduces the usability of the package to near zero even though this could be
fixed trivially. Please don't tell that these changes would affect
stability. That's just stubbornes for the sake of following (existing or
pretended) rules.

> and you Rüdiger, remove this stupid "easter egg"

There's nothing to remove. Just don't compile it in. That means setting the
EXTRAVERSION to a value ("Debian" being preferred, anything starting with
"Official " strongly rejected).

Yours, Rüdiger.

         100 DM =  51  € 13 ¢.
         100  € = 195 DM 58 pf.

Reply to: