Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive
Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:56:36PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>> Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever
>>> agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the
>>> mailing list archive. Wiki? policy?
>> Policy.
> no, please, no.
> policy should document technical terms.
> whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
> more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo)
> should not be included in -policy.
> what's offensive to you, might be my everyday. IOW: what's offensive to
> you (or me) might be my|your everyday.
Policy in this case would document the convention of using -offensive for
packages that are split along those lines *by the maintainer*. I agree
that we certainly shouldn't attempt to define what is and isn't offensive
in Policy and leave that up to the maintainer. But it sounds like we have
a package naming convention for this specific type of package split, and
the standardization of the naming convention (-offensive instead of -off
or -dirty or -nsfw or whatever other thing someone might come up with) is
within the traditional grounds of Policy.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: