[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?



On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> On 11/20/22 22:14, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 21:42, G. Branden Robinson
> > <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Thank you for, perhaps inadvertently, compelling me to review some of
> > > the content of the package.  I can now say that I am certain there is
> > > material of worth in the fortunes-off package and support its retention
> > > in the Debian distribution.  A review process for individual entries
> > > that are incompatible with the project's values is manifest in the BTS.
> > > 
> > rational approach vs cancel culture: 1 vs 0
> > <3
> 
> I can only very much agree to this.

I also wholly agree, alas it seems we already lost before this even
started :(

https://tracker.debian.org/news/1385116/accepted-fortune-mod-11991-72-source-amd64-all-into-unstable/

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: