Re: debian-sanitize^H^H^Hy
On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 09:42, Chad Miller wrote:
> I'm flabbergasted that the idea of a "harden-feelings" package has gotten
> so much legitimate response. One would think that a group that advocates
> software liberty would overwhelmingly find a subjective offensive-package
> list itself offensive to the objective reason Debian exists.
Well, I've said it several times, and will say it again: my interest
lies in *preventing* censorship. My method may be flawed (and you bring
up good points that others have brought up, and the proposal has been
withdrawn), but there's nothing illegitimate about thinking about a hard
problem in a different way.
> I'd also suggest that such a package wouldn't pass the DFSG "field of
> endeavour" clause. ${foo}ists may use Debian, too.
Why? If the package is optional, and itself ships with source that the
user may modify, what's the problem?
> So, you think a package is offensive? That isn't a problem to be solved
> with the packaging system. File a "wishlist" bug with the package, asking
> for a postinst notice that the package may be offensive.
Actually, the pattern has been to file a normal (or higher) bug
requesting that the content be removed. After a few of those, how many
developers start just hitting the delete key to shut people up?
Reply to: