Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
*** Please _don't_Cc:_ me when following up to the list ***
Sorry for responding late, had a mail hickup on sunday :(
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
[...]
> it's irrelevant whether other debian developers or users agree with me
> or disagree with me about the relative utility of these two packages.
> by not censoring packages, by refusing to censor packages, we create
> a distribution which is good and useful for everyone - not just those
> whose needs are the same as the censors. some find the bible package
> useful and i don't begrudge them that - if it makes debian more useful
> to them then it is a good thing that it is included.
>
> we should not be censoring, we should not be saying "the bible is good
> but the koran or bhagavid gita or even the anarchist faq is worthless".
> or vice-versa.
Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main?
I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available.
> if something is free and someone does the work to package it then we
> accept it in the distribution.
There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go
into the CD business providing support for packages in the main
dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing
to support packages with philosophical, political or religious
contents.
The way it is, I can't say "Support for all of Debian's main dist".
My point is, should there be subjective stuff in the main dist?
CU
Siggy
Reply to: