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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

Moin Alexander!
Alexander Wirt schrieb am Thursday, den 13. February 2003:

> > 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)
> Hmm I think, that if the developer says he needs it, he is proabably
> right. Some wishes of a Maintainer should be fulfilled if its possible
> and not violating the policy.

Sure. But Rüdiger should know how Debian works and which people he can
contact to make Martin change his opinion. Apparently, he failed on it,
and created some easter egg, which only target were the users - yes, he
tried to destroy Martin's repurtation but doing it by harming
Debian's reputation as whole.

That is a behaviour I would not accept from a future developer [1], and
when he won't be accepted as developer, I expect even more (and better
hidden) funny things in his code, so I would drop the software now and
not risk adding potentialy trojaned software.

> > 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].
> I don't think that this is neccessary at all. Maybe the maintainer of
> the package should change, so that everybody could come down... 

Maybe. And even if we keep this package, someone with needed skills
should always review the changes in the upstream versions.

> Sometimes to people aren't able to work together, then the wisest of
> them should get a step back and give another person a chance.

NACK. I had some conflicts with upstream developers, but we always new
where to stop. Never destructing each other officialy. Never damage
others work by making patches incompatible, for example. Rüdiger crossed
that line, and until he posts a good explanation here, I see a problem
in accepting his software.


[1] I see Branden looking at me and I continue to claim that serving
Social contract by distributing completely outdated software, having the
chance to fix it in time, is not always a good idea
Mercedes vermietet jetzt den Unterboden der A-Klasse als Werbefläche.

Reply to: