Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Sean Whitton dijo [Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:40:54PM -0700]: > Hello David, > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > >> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > >> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended > >>

Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Hello David, On Thu, Nov 23 2017, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can >> > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended >> > or Depended on,

Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive [and 1 more messages]

David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive"): > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > > >

Re: Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:18:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended > > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.

Bug#882445: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Tags: patch User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Usertags: normative Hello Ian, Iain, Gunnar, Steve, On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: > So to be concrete, how about this: > > N. Packages with potentially offensive content > > As a maintainer

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Hello, On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Policy in this case would document the convention of using -offensive > for packages that are split along those lines *by the maintainer*. I > agree that we certainly shouldn't attempt to define what is and isn't > offensive in Policy and leave

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:32:40PM +]: > So to be concrete, how about this: > > N. Packages with potentially offensive content > > As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the > contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs > any

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

"Iain R. Learmonth" writes: > If there was to be a policy, it should include something along the lines > of "maintainers should tend towards the least offensive build options" > but worded in such a way that compiler optimisations and hardening > options are not subject to an

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Phil Wyett writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive"): > In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be > done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a > social policy and administered by the

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 21:29 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote: > > > In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should > > be > > done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a > > social policy and

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:37:57PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: I agree. Using the package name for labelling feels odd. It also seems like a reasonable and practical solution, more so than some overly complicated whizz-bang tagging scheme that the target audience will likely not understand.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:37:57PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 22.11.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Paul Wise: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote: > > > >> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should > >> be > >> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Ian Jackson wrote: > >So to be concrete, how about this: > > N. Packages with potentially offensive content > > As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the > contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs > any kind of content warning, and whether some

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Am 22.11.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Paul Wise: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote: > >> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be >> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a >> social policy and administered by the

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote: > In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be > done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a > social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All > subsequent

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:23:12AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content, not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that "-offensive" suffix proposal

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 08:49 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:38:43AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > no, please, no. > > > > policy should document technical terms. > > > > whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is > > more complicated than

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Hi, On 22/11/17 12:32, Ian Jackson wrote: > So to be concrete, how about this: > > N. Packages with potentially offensive content > > As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the > contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs > any kind of content

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive"): > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content, > > not about defining what is or i

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Iain R. Learmonth writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive"): > I may have been not entirely serious in that example. As the insults are > not enabled by default, most users will never see them, though they are > compiled in. > > If there was

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Hi, On 22/11/17 11:31, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 14864 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote: >> This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace >> politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not >> defining this option, the package is explicitly built to

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On 14864 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote: > This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace > politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not > defining this option, the package is explicitly built to be offensive. > Obviously we should allow for a

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Hi, On 22/11/17 11:17, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > That seems like unnecessary complexity and work, to me. I'd be OK with > either letting the package be as it is now, or to build it without the > "non-PC" insults. Doesn't seem worth it to have two packages for this. I may have been not entirely

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content, > not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that > "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term. so you're proposing to add this

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:10:20AM +, Iain R. Learmonth wrote: > Currently, as far as I can tell, sudo is build without PC_INSULTS. We > should probably rename the sudo package to sudo-offensive. > > This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace > politically incorrect

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Hi, On 22/11/17 08:49, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive > content, not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that > "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term. Currently, as far as I can tell, sudo is build without

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:38:43AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: no, please, no. policy should document technical terms. whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo) should not be included in -policy.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Holger Levsen writes: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:56:36PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >>> Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever >>> agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the >>> mailing list archive. Wiki? policy? >>

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:56:36PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever > > agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the > > mailing list archive. Wiki? policy? > Policy. no, please, no. policy should document

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

Hello, On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > I agree. Me too. I was not aware of the -off convention, and couldn't have guessed it. > Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever > agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the > mailing

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On 21 November 2017 at 14:01, Ian Jackson wrote: > We have an (AFAICT informal) convention that packages with offensive > content, or content in questionable taste, should have names ending in > -off. This abbreviation is unnecessary, and increases the chances >

Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

We have an (AFAICT informal) convention that packages with offensive content, or content in questionable taste, should have names ending in -off. This abbreviation is unnecessary, and increases the chances that someone will install such a thing by mistake. (If cowsay-off had been called