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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:54:44AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	Fine. This particular cracker hid a poison pill in the
>  program, which would attempt to evade developer checks, and, at a
>  point in time, trigger to deny the use the services of the
>  program. Denial of services trojan, rahter cleverly
>  disguised. 

No. Its not a poisonpill.

It just refuses to work if it cant give an extrabit of verbosity that
the developer needs to debug it.

Wether this is against DSFG already (in non-free terms) is something i
will not judge about.

That the code is obfuscated is IMVHO a tribute to the fact that upstream
feared that the maintainer will just rip his code off if he detects it
and the Debian Package again is missing that extrabit that the
upstream demanded.

> Still, the upstream is a cracker, and next time, he'll do worse.

Stop being ridiculous.
You are doing acussations which are simply silly.
You are turning this into a flamewar against Upstream and that is
becoming more annoying than anything what Upstream did.

I get the impression you feel *personally* *offended* by the damage you
see done by upstream to the debian project.

Although iam not backing Ruediger up in this case - the Debian Project
does not only consist of the Debian maintainer only, there could have
happend a lot of talk to prevent all what happened now - i do not see
how removing the Package would do the Users any good.

It does not help the debian project if people imply destructive
behaviour on Ruediger.

| Rico -mc- Gloeckner 
| mv ~/.signature `finger mc@ukeer.de`

Attachment: pgph9DshFrDkU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: