Re: Let's CENSOR it! (was: Uploaded anarchism 7.5-1 (source all) to master)
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 02:52:37PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 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.
I didn't see this reason mentioned in your last two flamewars with
Branden Robinson? Although the situation could seem to point anyone
to remove the 'obsolete' packages - we aren't really responsible for
what *clueless* user does, without consulting the documentation.
BTW some other packages have relationships with xfonts-* packages,
so dselect would prompt for their installation anyhow. A clueless
user would follow dselect's suggestions and recommendations.
> Following your reasoning, if "a font package does not do anything bad",
> then an empty package should not do anything bad either.
No, but situations are not significantly different. Then this just
comes to what the maintainer wishes to do. I suggest that you talk
to him once again.
> 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 ;-)
Although this does seem unfair to you, I haven't noticed more support
to your idea than to his, in discussions about it.
Can we have an EOT now, since *I* really can't do anything to help?
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
Reply to: