On 08/29/2011 05:00 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:47:40AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's made
up
> word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
> silly code, it is in fact code provided by upstream. It's still
> maintained, is of a valid license, and I don't see a valid reason to break
> with upstream here. If you can convince upstream to split it out or drop
> it, great.
That's simple, I'm upstream maintainer. The command has been disabled
by default in the last stable release. And yes, one I day I'll drop it...
> If not, and there isn't a compelling disk space or security
> argument, I really don't see why this should be dropped. I'm looking for
> a clear example of demonstrable harm. It's 14k of silliness, not a
> rootkit.
- it's joke rather than anything useful
Then have upstream remove it from
_their_ sources.
Ralf