Re: RFC/RFS: ...
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:18:10PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> John Buttery wrote:
> > * On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:33:46AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >
> >>Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> >>
> >>>I guess you mean libacme-brainfck-perl.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>>I think there is no need to use such a trick, since the program's name does
> >>>contain no offending words.
> >>
> >>Well, l-b-p's description doesn't either, yours does to date.
>
> I'm not really sure I follow you here. My intention was to suggest that
> most people taking offence could likely live with description similar to
> the one of libacme-brainfck-perl, or at least wouldn't really be harmed
> by two package descriptions of that type over one.
I find "brainf*ck" and "b*tchx" somewhat harsh myself, and so renaming
doesn't bother me. But I think it would f'ing suck if you couldn't
apt-cache search for the package by its real name, so it makes me
happy that l-b-p provides a (virtual) package with that name, and that
apt-cache search DWIW.
Justin
Reply to: