On 18/10/01, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:26:19AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > If I remember correctly, then ssh2 offers some authentication and chroot
> > options, that are not available with OpenSSH. And I'm not sure if all
> > those features will be implemented into OpenSSH too. So therefor I would
> > be for keeping that package around and only agree with it's removal, if
> > our ssh maintainer also agrees with such a removal, because he be should
> > know best the differences from OpenSSH to the commercial ssh
> > client/server. And if it's worth it to keep both around or not.
> Are you willing to maintain it,
No, since I'm currently happy with the number of packages that I
maintain. Also I'm tracking the OpenSSH development and so far it worked
for me, so that I don't have a need to use ssh2.
> or at least make it suitable for release?
Is that the new way of threading people who speak up against a removal
request for a package? Also why did you ignore my hint in which case a
removal maybe acceptable?
> We're only contemplating its removal because it's orphaned and buggy.
Oh, so because it's orphaned we shall remove it? Great, when do you ask
to remove more packages from this list `grep-available -FMaintainer
-sPackage packages@qa.debian.org` which contains 225 packages with the
same reason? And yes, I'm pretty sure that some packages in that list
have also bugs and can therefor be called buggy, so that you reason for
removal is also fulfilled by them. So I plan to see more removal request
from you for packages which match the criteria that you defined above.
Otherwise this looks for me like someone seeking an very simple and easy
solution for handling release-critical bugs in packages maintained by
the members of this list.
Christian
--
Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgp5vMFos60qQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature