Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:23:19PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Colin Watson (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040831 05:09]:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 03:27:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > PS: I suppose you also want to bann everyone that uploaded a binary
> > > porting NMU for me and remove all those uploads (which might be a 4
> > > digit number by now)
> > I definitely do not think that any binary upload should ever be
> > sponsored, full stop. If it were feasible to do so I would prefer that
> > those uploads be removed, as in this case the cure is worse than the
> > disease; since it's probably not feasible, I would simply like this
> > practice to stop immediately.
> i failed to read this thread all the way, for some reason. could
> you elaborate a bit on what you mean?
I think my mail stands on its own. I don't really see how I can
elaborate on it per se.
> it seems to be important to you and i dont understand it yet.
Do you not think it is important for sponsors to verify what they're
sponsoring against trojans? How do you propose to verify a lump of
binary data you've received?
Colin Watson [email@example.com]