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

Re: package rejection



On Friday 03 December 2004 06:19, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Hi fellow debianista,
> the package in question has not yet been accepted.
> For a pacakge to be accepted, here is conditions some have mentioned:
> 1) dfsg-free
IMHO the only requirement debian as a whole should care about.

> 3) has to be able to be mirrored by all mirrors based on the laws of the
> location of the server
Definately not, lowest common denominator would exclude an awfull lot (if 
not most things)

 I think the right solution here is to create some debtag scheme to easisly 
tag packages as 'illegal in <some jurisdiction>', and in addition adjust 
the  mirroring/CD-building scripts to easily exclude all packages 
tagged/not-tagged a certain way.

That way once a package is identified as being illegal in some jurisdiction 
(by users/developpers in that jurisdiction) it can be tagged, and hence 
automatically excluded in that jurisdiction (but still be available for all 
users for who the package _is_ legal)

Note: in more repressive jurisdictions it might make more sense to exclude 
everything that's not explicitly tagged as legal

> 2) can not be sexist
> 4) can not offend someone's religion
> 5) must be able to be installed by minors
> 6) can not be off-color sexually or culturally
define sexist (their will be lots and lots of gray areas)
define minor (differs from region to region, as does what's legal for 
minors)
define off-color sexually/culturally (again large differences of opinion)

-> there is no 1 answer in these questions, therefore it's not reasonable to 
confine Debian (as a whole) to whatever your particular sensitivities 
happen to be. 

That said it should be easy for any group that cares about a particular 
issue strongly enough to:
-  tag things as acceptable/unacceptable (debtags already allows this 
AFAICT).
- build a mirror/CD/installation that excludes everything tagged a certain 
way (or that only includes stuff tagged a certain way)

As to legal in certain areas, I think in a lot of places we don't need to be 
proactive, we can suffise with just removing things (from mirrors/CD's in 
that jurisdiction) whenever somebody points out something is illegal.
In more restrictive places we'll need some team of developers+users doing 
that proactively (or not have a mirror there).

-> Everybody (that cares enough to do the work) gets to have their cake and 
eat it to, meaning Debian caters to the users of all the different groups
-> Debian is not burdoned with  


> does it have to pass all of these, all the time?
not possible to satisfy  all such concerns -> definately no

> does it have to pass different condition for the cd's that people
> distribute? ie. would it be ok to force its exclusion on cd#1 but
> include it on one/all debian mirrors?
have the CD-building/mirroring scripts use all packages by default, but give 
the option to easily exclude groups of packges

> what about different mirror and cd creation rules?
as said above I think having a mechanism to define rules exclusion/inclusion 
for CD/mirror-creation is I think the way to go 
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
    format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)

Attachment: pgpolQU4as6L7.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: