Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:12:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> 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 am silly? You want to ignore a denial of service poison
> pill, and you think I am being silly? What is this, and old boy
> cracker club? We'll hit our users with a denial of service attack in
> a pissing contest and we'll then just kiss and make up? The hell
> with the users and the social contract?
I do not put any attributes on you personally, since i do not know you
good enough. However i find your accusations and the other accusations
about "rm -rf <whatever>" silly.
Whatever. From your attitude i read that iam not worth to discuss it
since i do not have the faintest idea about what a "poisonpill" is.
However, allow me two more questions:
1) What would have happened when the program had refused to compile if
EXTRAVERSION had not be set.
2) What would have happened if Martin had decided once again that
EXTRAVERSION is either useless or not worth to set and removed the ifdef
Checks from the Code?
I say both, Ruediger and Martin found a lot of things to learn, but i
still find your accusations that Ruediger actually "dos'ed" the debian
project or acted "destructive" silly.
Having a non-working Package or no Package at all is a Status Quo to me.
So who do you help with removing the Package - is it the Users of Debian
or is it your Ego?
-rg
--
| Rico -mc- Gloeckner
| mv ~/.signature `finger mc@ukeer.de`
Reply to: