Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
>>>>> In article <[🔎] 20030214105532.GF1208@krikkit.ukeer.de>, Rico -mc- Gloeckner <mc@ukeer.de> writes:
> 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.
Famous last words. I find your indulgent boys will be boys
approach to handling a denial of service atrtack touchingly naive.
> 1) What would have happened when the program had refused to compile
> if EXTRAVERSION had not be set.
That would not have been a hidden DOS trojan; it would have
neem a build requirement, and happens all over the place.
> 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 am not sure. There is certainly a technical dispute,
precisely the kind of thing the techh ctte has been creayed for. A
bug could have been filed. The message could havebeen sent to this
mailing list.
Either would have been professional behaviour.
> 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?
We are removing the package since we can;t be sure how else
to protect our users. When we have run an audit, if anyone is
interested, the package can come back in.
Putting in code from a know untrustworthy source since you
think the package is indispensable is not really an option. There
are other alternative packages to tide you over until the audit
happens.
manoj
--
Totally illogical, there was no chance. Spock, "The Galileo Seven",
stardate 2822.3
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: