On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 09:56:16 -0500 Justin Pryzby <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > I find "brainf*ck" and "b*tchx" somewhat harsh myself, and so renaming > doesn't bother me. But I think it would f'ing suck if you couldn't > apt-cache search for the package by its real name, so it makes me > happy that l-b-p provides a (virtual) package with that name, and that > apt-cache search DWIW. But also using a trick similar to the one used for l-b-p, there is still a package whose name contains the offending word "brainfuck". If not, an user searching for a brainfuck interpreter/compiler will never find a matching package. This is just bad, IMHO: the end user often doesn't know the exact name of a package providing some sort of capability, but he just searches "audio", "player", "mp3" or similar to find out a suitable program. I think that, given a package *named* "bitchx" already exists in Debian, a package whose *name* contains the term "brainfuck" and beef contains the term "brainfuck" only in its *description* but not in its name, there is no sense leaving it out. I could be wrong, anyway. Cheers. -- KiyuKo <eof AT kiyuko DOT org> "Like Russian Rulette with six bullets loaded"
Description: PGP signature