On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All > contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid > contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the > future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or > security updates.
So you consider it acceptable to leave Gentoo users open to security holes and crashes because of some personal dislikes? > No, this does not prevent Gentoo from using software packages where > user XYZ contributes upstream. In my view, if Gentoo does decide to > ban an user and has a good relationship with upstream, we should > alert upstream and provide evidence of the behaviour that led to the > user ban. However, if upstream = user XYZ and the product is just a > Gentoo package, then it should also be blocked - that would be a > clever way to avoid the ban. Any other doubt about my proposal? So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal dislikes? What gives Gentoo the right to screw over users in such a manner? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
