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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

>>>>> In article <[🔎] 20030214091621.GA20444@shadowglade.net>, "Matthew
>>>>> P. McGuire" <gray@shadowglade.net> writes: 

 > At the risk of sounding resoundingly stupid, why not try to
 > work out the differences between you and upstream?

	Because upstream kinda burned his bridges when he hit our
 users with a denial of service poison pill?

 > I get the impression that this would the solve the problem as a
 > whole. If you feel that upstream refuses to be reasonable, then

	I think we agree that hitting users with an attack to coerce
 the Debian project, or the maintainer, into a different course of
 action is hardly reasonable behaviour. 

 > remove the offending bit of code, upload a 'safe' version and
 > orphan the package.

	How do you know the author hasn't gotten ``mad'' at someone
 else before? How can you be sure there is only one offensive bit of
 code? Normally, one may trust to the good sense of the author, but
 that is obviously not the case here.

 > Or better yet, offer the package to someone else you trust who
 > could try to work out the problem.  Requesting permanent removal is
 > a brute force political move and I don't think enough people will
 > support it. I do hope that this can get worked out in as peaceful a
 > method as possible.

	It is not permanent removal, it is removal until we can audit
 the code, and it is not a political move, it is the only thing we
 can do to protect our users.

Start the day with a smile.  After that you can be your nasty old self
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: