Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Stephan Seitz - 26.07.18, 11:10:
> On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:32:34 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:
> >> I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite
> >> that text having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its
> >> 75M. I>
> >That text did not *directly* cause anything. It were still human
> >beings killing one another. The book is not responsible for
> >anything. Human beings are.
>
> Sounds like the US weapon industry.
Could I welcome feeling attacked in person? Yes.
Could I let go feeling attacked in person? Yes.
A weapon is a tool made specifically for the purpose of harming or
killing human beings (or at least their bodies). Most books are not. Yet
even with weapons human beings are responsible. That does not make it
any better to give weapons freely to anyone who would like to have one.
There are areas where it makes sense to restrict what human beings can
do by not providing them the tools that are necessary or make it at
least much more easy to do it.
I do not endorse of the bible in its current canonical variants
mainstream churches use. Neither I do endorse of weapons. Quite the
contrary.
In any case my initial remark regarding the bible did not contribute to
the discussion here, I think.
> >But they are equal. Which means are to be treated equally fair and
> >with respect. I do not see that with the weboob package being
> >included in Debian with binary names unchanged.
>
> I don’t understand the problem. No one forces anyone to keep the
> package in Debian. Upstream made clear it isn’t interested in
> changing the names.
The point is that it currently is in Debian, binary names unchanged:
% rmadison weboob | grep unstable
weboob | 1.3-1 | unstable | source, all
Of course it can be changed.
Thanks.
--
Martin
Reply to: