Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
>>>>> In article <[🔎] 20030215005735.GQ19446@rilke>, Cardenas
>>>>> <mbc@debian.org> writes:
> Are you guys nuts? Upstream just wants their software to run
> optimally, and the maintainer refuses to do so. What's wrong with
> upstream informing users of the situation?
I see. So, you take a program, add a poison pill to make it
stop working, add a time bomb to make sure it passes initial testing
by people, obfuscate the code to hide it from random scanning, ensure
that the maintainer shall never see the bug by explicitly excluding
him from the poison pill effects, and silently upload this, thus
deliberately targeting Debian users, and you think this is just
upstream informing users?
Interesting communications channels you have in your part of
the world.
> Obviously, the upstream developer is interested in debian, and
> interested in making the package work right if he's willing to go
> down the long road of the NM queue. All we're doing is turning away
> a perfectly capable developer for a few printf's?
Please read the code posted on the list. It was a Denial Of
Service attack, not a few printf's, cleverly hidden, and designed
specifically to defeat nominal testing mechanisms Debian employs.
manoj
--
Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent. Walt Kelly
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: