Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

To: Thierry Laronde <thierry.laronde@polynum.com>
Cc: Debian Quality <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?
From: Torsten Landschoff <torsten@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:10:35 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20000114051034.C9406@wormhole.galaxy>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20000113232418.A1602@polynum.com>; from Thierry Laronde on Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100
References: <[🔎] 20000113232418.A1602@polynum.com>

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote:
 
> Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be here just to exaggerate the size of
> the package : archie | fortune | finger | uptime | calendar | date are
> basic Bourne Shell scripts invoking a command !

imho we should get this package the hell out of Debian. It seems those 
scripts are not even secure so installing that package might be a
security risk.

cu
    Torsten

-- 
Torsten Landschoff           Bluehorn@IRC               <torsten@debian.org>
           Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Committee Member

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?
  - From: Thierry Laronde <thierry.laronde@polynum.com>

References:
- Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?
  - From: Thierry Laronde <thierry.laronde@polynum.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Looking for a package to adopt
Next by Date: Re: ITU ezmlm-src
Previous by thread: RE: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?
Next by thread: Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread