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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

* Tore Anderson

 > >   ..and if you take into account the mood of the discussion, I read
 > >  your comment as more of an encouragement.  He did exactly what he
 > >  said he'd do, and by doing so demonstrated that you're not doing
 > >  proper QA on your packages.  IMO, you've got a well-deserved slap,
 > >  and have no reason to sulk over it.  Upstream didn't introduce any
 > >  security holes, nor do I get the impression that he intends to.

* Glenn Maynard

 > He didn't say he'd do so in the program, and the fact that he obfuscated
 > it indicates that he didn't want it to be found, so it's clear that the
 > text you quoted was *not* an indication that he was going to do what he
 > did.

  He didn't elaborate on exactly _how_ he was going to deliver his message
 to the users of the debian-provided packages.  I would assume that if
 he didn't obfuscate it the package would never have reached the archive,
 and thus the message would never have reached the intended audience - I
 don't believe any maintainer would knowingly upload a package which did
 nothing but state that the package sucked.

  Anyway, that he did it in a unexpected (not to mention childish) manner,
 doesn't in any way make it "clear" that it was not his meaning to do
 so.  I can only speculate, but I don't think it's unlikely that he did
 exactly what he meant by his, um, "threat".

 > I can't believe people are defending the act of slipping obfuscated code
 > into a program designed to not be seen by the maintainer and to make
 > Debian look stupid.

  Please do not attribute opinions to me, that I do not have.

Tore Anderson

Reply to: