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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

Eduard Bloch wrote:

> #include <hallo.h>
> * Craig Dickson [Thu, Feb 13 2003, 11:27:04PM]:
> > Debian maintainer typically did it (without any defined value for
> > EXTRAVERSION, against upstream's clearly-expressed wishes), when run by
> Something that could be handled sanely inside of the developers
> community.

He tried. He used the BTS, he used email, and there was recently a
discussion of it here on debian-devel (though if that discussion
post-dates the release of the code that has everyone so upset, then it
doesn't really count; I'm not quite clear on exactly when the nasty
code was released).

His next step should probably have been to take it to the Technical
Committee, but apparently he either wasn't aware of that option or was
too frustrated with the situation to wait for however long that might
take to get a resolution. I don't condone his choice, but I understand
the frustration.

> > were somehow compromising the security of the end user's machine (it
> > wasn't), nor to call it a "trojan", as if it were sneakily doing
> > something behind the end user's back (it wasn't; the refusal to run is
> Maintainer isn't a user?

When the maintainer is packaging the software, he is not acting as an
end-user. He may also be an end-user, but that's a separate role which
applies when he is actually _using_ the software, not _packaging_ it.

> A software that expires silently (read: same
> thing as bad shareware does) on certain systems is not trojaned? IMHO
> this is something violation DSFG in the first line.

You mean the non-discrimination clause? I believe that applies to the
license under which the code is released, not the code itself; and in
any case the Debian maintainer could have avoided the whole problem by
simply supplying a value for the EXTRAVERSION variable, as upstream had
been requesting. When that variable is defined, the program functions

Also note that the program does not fail on certain _systems_ -- you can
download Ruediger's own .deb package, built from exactly the same source
code, and it will function normally. It is only the official Debian
_package_ that doesn't work (regardless of what system it's running on),
and only because the Debian maintainer persisted in not doing a simple
thing that upstream had requested (defining the EXTRAVERSION variable).

Again, I don't condone Kuhlmann's action; I just think the seriousness
of the problem is being blown horribly out of proportion.


Attachment: pgpYWQ34ugc5s.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: