Hello, On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > 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. This is what I meant. Apologies for my brevity. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature