Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:25, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
> > 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.
An appropriate way to make him "fall on his mouth" would be to start a heated
discussion on this list regarding the matter. That is what happened with the
QT packages.
Putting a trojan horse in your program is not the appropriate solution.
> > 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.
There was an occasion where a shareware author wanted his program to delete
itself, but it had a bug and deleted entire systems. If the same program had
a bug which accidentally deleted files in the course of normal operation (IE
the administrator requests file A to be deleted but file B gets deleted due
to the bug) then it would not be a serious issue (just a really annoying and
painful bug). When the code that does the bad action is put in with
malicious intent and hidden then it's a totally different situation.
> Removing an author of a program from the authors list is neither nice nor
> legal.
Issues such as that should be raised for discussion with the relevant people.
The FTP administrators, debian-private, debian-legal, or this list.
It's too late to complain about someone doing something that rates 2/10 on the
badness scale when you've reached 9/10 in your response!
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: