On Sun, 6 May 2007 13:46:21 -0300 "Alex Queiroz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming languages > > > now? > > > > Challenging whether some software would be an asset to Debian is not > > cersorship by any definition of the word, but voicing an opinion. I'm glad > > that that is possible in Debian. > > > > The complaining I was referrering to was the programming language > used, not the quality of the software. And my opinion is that the choice of programming language for nanoweb inevitably led to an irrevocably poor quality of the software because the programming language chosen has inherent weaknesses that are publicly acknowledged and have been known for some time. This particular package does not play to the undoubted strengths of PHP, it could be vulnerable to an immense number of potential security issues, not just because of the package itself but because of the underlying weaknesses of the language. That is not censorship, that is challenging the reasons why a package was even considered in this manner. Not all free software is good software! Why should Debian accept a package that is so clearly the result of choosing the wrong language for the task? The risks are obvious, the problems are obvious, the extra workload for the security team is truly scary and I, for one, do not wish to go within a MILE of a package that reeks of that much trouble. Sponsoring isn't just about uploading, it is about putting your name to a package - making a signed public statement that this DD considers this package to be worth including in Debian. IMHO nanoweb does not deserve such endorsement from me - I get the feeling that other sponsors agree. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpiToDgr2WN0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
