Re: SUMMARY [Was Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?]
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:14:38PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> > A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
> > fortune files at all.
>
> I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.
>
> > The single collection we have is largely a random collection from BSD
> > of 1995 vintage, itself representative of one Unix site in 1995 or
> > earlier.
>
https://github.com/Distrotech/fortune-mod/tree/master/datfiles has the
majority of what we have - and similarly for other Linux distros, I
believe.
> I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the
> collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the
> changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
> more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive
> additions at least as recently as 2006).
>
> The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files,
> which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be valuable.
>
See above.
> > The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
> > disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
> > doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.
>
> Can you point to the repository you're referencing?
>
> I wanted to check that repository to see whether it had the
> Debian-specific parts of the collection, but since I can't find it, I
> can't verify that before sending this.
>
> The only repository URLs I find in the package metadata are the
> Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git URLs from 'apt-cache showsrc fortunes-off'
> (which shows the information for the fortune-mod source package), and
> those are under anonscm.debian.org.
>
> /usr/share/doc/fortune-mod/README.gz lists several URLs, at least one of
> which appears to be a repository, but it isn't on GitHub and leads to a
> 404.
>
> The files under /usr/share/doc/fortunes*/ don't seem to list any URLs at
> all - except for one in changelog.Debian.gz, which dates from 1998 and
> is about the addition of the 'perl' fortunes file.
>
> The only upstream I can find referenced is the references in
> changelog.debian.gz to "Pascal Hakim", but no apparent place to find
> whatever upstream that person might host seems to be mentioned.
>
> > PyPi has a fortunes-mod equivalent to read fortunes files: it
> > doesn't necessarily include strfile but it will handle pre-existing
> > fortune files. It should be open to anybody to make their own
> > fortunes files - just as anyone can make a mix of their own music on
> > their favourite music player.
> >
> > If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
> > means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost.
> > Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether
> > questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
> > the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.
>
> I sharply disagree that nothing is lost, but I don't seem to have the
> emotional energy to try to explain why without becoming argumentative
> and probably just making things worse overall. (I have held back a draft
> which makes the attempt, but which I suspect distinctly fails.)
>
> > This also means that anyone who wishes can add the *missing* content
> > requested in the bugs over years into their own files at their own
> > risk.
> >
> > Your thoughts, again, please.
>
> I am reasonably certain that this would just lead to far fewer people
> bothering to make use of the fortunes database(s) at all, thereby
> creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about how irrelevant this is in the
> modern world.
>
> From my perspective, this whole discussion looks like someone whom I've
> respected coming in and proposing to take away one of the small things
> I somewhat like having around, and that taking-away happening almost
> immediately despite the existence of pushback over it, and then that
> person reacting to the pushback by proposing to take away a *bigger*
> thing that I even *more* like having around. I imagine it's not hard to
> see how that could be upsetting or demotivating.
>
The way it was packaged 25 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that we
have to continue to do the same indefinitely - we now have a much wider
Internet to select from rather than storing program and files in the same
space.
I could see that being upsetting or demotivating - I'm not proposing
removing anything from the 'Net or files that already exist: I'm
suggesting that finding consensus on actual maintenance of fortune
files is harder than it originally appeared to me.
I'm also not suggesting that we police anything - on the contrary, that we mightleave it to users to pick their own favourite quotes for their own fortune
files.
Again, thanks for your considered and considerate approach in your response
which is appreciated.
With every good wish, as ever,
Andy Cater
> --
> The Wanderer
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
>
Reply to: