Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:07:53AM +0100, Michael Neuffer wrote:
>Am 20. November 2022 23:04:05 MEZ schrieb Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org>:
>>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/
>>
>
>As it was an NMU, this should be easily rectified.
>Don't let cancel culture win.
Are you volunteering to pick up the package and review its contents,
removing the worst stuff that is clearly *not* fit for us to publish?
In its previous state it included:
* content that is downright illegal in many jurisdictions
* content that is impossible to justify against Debian's stated
values
so simply undoing the NMU here is clearly not an acceptable route
forward.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
< Aardvark> I dislike C++ to start with. C++11 just seems to be
handing rope-creating factories for users to hang multiple
instances of themselves.
Reply to: