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

Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package

Michael Holzt <kju@fqdn.org> writes:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> At the risk of sounding resoundingly stupid, why not try to work out 
> >> the differences between you and upstream?
> > Because upstream kinda burned his bridges when he hit our users with a 
> > denial of service poison pill?
> I disagree with you on this point. At least for me it seems quite
> obvious that the bad behaviour was first on "our" side, namely in
> the person of 'madkiss' who seem to have done a really bad job on
> maintaining micq.

As a new maintainer, I'm trying to figure out what constitutes doing a
"really bad job" here.  It certainly sounds like madkiss was less than
responsive to the desires of upstream, but looking over the bug
reports it seems like he was doing the right thing -- generating
patches for serious bugs and getting them adopted in stable, creating
new packages in unstable that fix other bugs.  The bugs marked
"wontfix" seem to be only for the woody version, and only because
Ruediger had serious disagreements with what I thought were Debian
policy, not something `madkiss' decided on his own.

So, can someone explain to me what was being done wrong in the
maintenance aspect?  I suspect that there's a lot of bad communication
and anger between upstream and `madkiss', but most of the handling
seems to be done according to our policies.  Heck, four of the bugs
that Ruediger has open on micq weren't even filed until after the
trojan activated.

Stephen L. Peters                                  portnoy@portnoy.org
  GPG fingerprint: A1BF 5A81 03E7 47CE 71E0  3BD4 8DA6 9268 5BB6 4BBE
     "Poodle: The other white meat." -- Sherman, Sherman's Lagoon

Reply to: