On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:59:24PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > It would be great if someone on the FTP team could either accept the > > sexpp package, or reject it with an explanation of what needs to be done > > to fix it. > > I am not going to ACCEPT a package with that name, I agree with Thorsten (and the advice of anti-harassment team) that weboob was a problem, and we need to remain vigilant to ensure we don't allow things like that again. I also know (being a Lisper) that S-Expressions (Symbolic Expressions) are commonly abbreviated as sexprs both internal to codebase (such as internal package names) and in user-facing documentation. There are also similar M-Expressions (Meta Expressions). I do not believe this name is in any way intended to be a joke, or to reference the string "sex"; this is the only technically correct way to refer to the syntax for which it's designed to parse. In fact, "sexpr" is included in the codebase of libreoffice, gcc, vim, firefox, llvm, sed, chromium, zsh, bash, grub2, along with 410 other packages, according to codesearch.debian.net. If 'sexpr' is an issue, we have a *lot* of work to do; on the order of "master/slave" being slowly fixed to "primary/secondary" (or other more helpful and descriptive terms) which will require the coordination of a *lot* of upstreams. > but maybe someone else from the team wants to do this. Given that I believe that I understand the reasons behind the hold, I have reviewed this package, and marked it for accept on my best judgement. This package should hit sid soon. If the rest of the ftpteam continues to disagree, we can hash it out and I can take accountability for fixing the archive due to any actions I have taken. paultag -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Paul Tagliamonte <paultag> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://people.debian.org/~paultag | https://pault.ag/ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ Debian, the universal operating system. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀ 4096R / FEF2 EB20 16E6 A856 B98C E820 2DCD 6B5D E858 ADF3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature