| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" |
| 2 |
<jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All |
| 4 |
> contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid |
| 5 |
> contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the |
| 6 |
> future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or |
| 7 |
> security updates. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
So you consider it acceptable to leave Gentoo users open to security |
| 10 |
holes and crashes because of some personal dislikes? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> No, this does not prevent Gentoo from using software packages where |
| 13 |
> user XYZ contributes upstream. In my view, if Gentoo does decide to |
| 14 |
> ban an user and has a good relationship with upstream, we should |
| 15 |
> alert upstream and provide evidence of the behaviour that led to the |
| 16 |
> user ban. However, if upstream = user XYZ and the product is just a |
| 17 |
> Gentoo package, then it should also be blocked - that would be a |
| 18 |
> clever way to avoid the ban. Any other doubt about my proposal? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use |
| 21 |
packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal |
| 22 |
dislikes? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What gives Gentoo the right to screw over users in such a manner? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 28 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 29 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 30 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives