Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> * Ship modified upstream tarball, removing insulting source code, and put a
> note in README.Debian to explain why we're doing this (closes: #477454).
For the record, your README.Debian consists of:
The upstream tarball for quodlibet in Debian does not match the one distributed
by upstream, as a minor change has been made to it. The only difference between
the two should be this diff:
diff -rN -u old-quodlibet.upstream/player.py new-quodlibet.upstream/player.py
--- old-quodlibet.upstream/player.py 2008-06-03 19:45:12.247191545 +0200
+++ new-quodlibet.upstream/player.py 2008-06-03 19:45:12.311191392 +0200
@@ -289,7 +289,7 @@
gst.debug_set_default_threshold(gst.LEVEL_ERROR)
if gst.element_make_from_uri(
gst.URI_SRC,
- "file:///Sebastian/Droge/please/choke/on/a/bucket/of/cocks", ""):
+ "file:///fake/path/for/gst", ""):
global playlist
playlist = PlaylistPlayer(pipeline or "gconfaudiosink", librarian)
return playlist
If the presense of this buried in an internal source file is so
vile/illegal/unlike other profanity in software in Debian that you have to
*repackage* the upstream tarball to hide it from the tender eyes of our users
(with all the problems that entails), why do you then turn around and add it
back in to the most important file that we expect our users to read?
My mind boggles.
PS: What does quodlibet sponsorship have to do with the debian-python mailing
list?
--
see shy jo, wondering if perhaps the point is to shield the under-aged
python interpeter from the profanity, or what
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature