Re: Anarchism package
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 01:22:59AM -0600, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:00:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG typed:
> } Ralf Treinen <email@example.com> writes:
> } > > This would take them out of the allready huge list of packages in
> } > > a normal debian install, but still make them available to anyone
> } >
> } > Yes, this would be a solution. -Ralf.
> } I think it's a very good solution, should we discover that there are
> } so many such packages they are causing a problem where they are now.
> } But it's such a small proportion of the size of the archive, that it
> } would be a waste to bother right now.
> Crazy question. Suppose we were to remove such datafiles from Debian.
> Isn't this going to set up a precedent for removing stuff from Debian
> because it offends somebody? For instance, isn't this feasible precedent
> for removing the fortune packages, as well as paranoia and yow from the
> Emacs package? Are we going to ban any and all bible/koran/etc programs,
> as well as any that might happen to come up dealing with Tarot or paganism
> or, gods forbid, I-Ching or superstitions?
No, this would be like taking cryptography out of the main
debian site and putting it in non-us. We would just take out
Documents that have nothing to do with the server software,
and put them in "library.debian.org", to be freely downloaded
by anyone who puts "library.debian.org" in their apt list. I
already have to put one line in for the main archive, non-us,
security, and 2 for deb-src. I wouldn't object to another
for library, or reference.
> This is a worse restriction than the one on non-free. And, seemingly
> for all the wrong reasons.
> I'm far from religous, and I dislike the bible, but this doesn't seem
> right, and it seems against the Social Contract. It's censorship. I
> thought Debian was about free speech, not about political correctness.
I'm only suggesting this as a way to get over the problems
everybody else seems to be worried about. Over population
wrt the debian packages on the main ftp site. If I've come
to the wrong conclusions, somebody feel free to correct me.
This doesn't seem like censorship to me, at least no more
than putting the security updates on a seperate ftp site.