Re: RFC/RFS: ...
John Buttery wrote:
> * On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:33:46AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>>Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>>>I guess you mean libacme-brainfck-perl.
>>>I think there is no need to use such a trick, since the program's name does
>>>contain no offending words.
>>Well, l-b-p's description doesn't either, yours does to date.
> I fretted for a long time over whether to send this, but no, it has to
> be said. As far as I'm concerned, the most offensive thing that's been
> said so far is your line about how "decent" people don't use "bad
I'm not really sure I follow you here. My intention was to suggest that
most people taking offence could likely live with description similar to
the one of libacme-brainfck-perl, or at least wouldn't really be harmed
by two package descriptions of that type over one.
I'm not really interested in the question whether the naming is
incredibly witty humour or merely a sign of imaturity or whatever.
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/