[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Let's CENSOR it! (was: Uploaded anarchism 7.5-1 (source all) to master)

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:36:50PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > After an upgrade, having "obsolete" but useful packages in the system
> > (like hamm's xfnt100) is worse than having empty compatibility packages
> > which may be removed at any time without any side effect (the same xfnt100
> > as a dummy package).
> I don't feel that way. Both situations are harmless, both are ugly,
> and both require user's intervention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
> I don't see how can some fonts (that haven't even changed IIRC) do
> anything bad.

The old font packages in the system are not bad as such, but dselect
shows them as being "obsolete".

A clueless user may think that he does no longer need this package and
remove it, and then he/she would lose the functionality provided by it.

This will never happen if we force the upgrade, as dselect itself would do
if the renaming had not happened.

Better to remove an empty package by mistake than to remove a useful
package by mistake, so no, both situations are *not* the same.

Following your reasoning, if "a font package does not do anything bad",
then an empty package should not do anything bad either.

I wanted to create them, because I think they are useful, but I was
"censored". You see, even an *empty* package may be "offensive" and
"rejected" because we "dislike" it ;-)


 "c065941f71889169b66cebabc086a018" (a truly random sig)

Reply to: