Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
"John H. Robinson, IV" <jhriv@ucsd.edu> writes:
> Remi VANICAT wrote:
>>
>> May be, but it seem that some of our user want it, so why forbid them
>> to have it.
>
> we don't. users can always fo to the upstream site and get the upstream
> .debs or tarball.
>
>> It's the main problem for me here, why do people believed that the
>> removal of this package will b e a problem for him ? It will only be a
>> problem for some of our user.
>
> people are rightfully afraid that the next flare-up will be more harfull
> to our users. the rom -rf $HOME or perhaps just limit it to rm -rf
> $HOME/.micq
>
> which is more harfull to our users, removing a potentially trojaned by
> upstream package, or include a potentiallu trojanes bu upstream
> package?
I continue to believe that destroy user data, and make the software to
stop functioning are two completely different behavior. So I don't
believe that this package have more chance to contain a dangerous Trojan
than any other package.
[...]
--
Rémi Vanicat
vanicat@labri.u-bordeaux.fr
http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~vanicat
Reply to: